Hagada Hasmalit

a critical review of israeli culture and society

Posted by רני On April - 24 - 2007 0 Comment

Uri Avnery accuses the supporters of the One State solution of forcefully imposing the facts onto the “Bed of Sodom” (22 April, 2007). He seems to regard these people best as day dreamers that do not understand the political reality around them and are stuck in a perpetual state of wishful thinking. We are all veteran comrades in the Israeli Left and therefore it is quite possible that in our moments of despair we fall into the trap of hallucinating and even fantasizing while ignoring the unpleasant reality around us.

And therefore the metaphor of the Bed of Sodom may even be fitting for lashing out at those who are inspired by the South African model in their search for a solution in Palestine. But in this case it is a small cot of Sodom compared to the king-size bed onto which Gush Shalom and other similar members of the Zionist Left insist on squeezing their two states’ solution. The South African model is young – in fact hardly a year has passed since it was seriously considered – the formula of two states is sixty years old: an abortive and dangerous illusion that enabled Israel to continue its occupation without facing any significant criticism from the international community.
The South African model is a good subject matter for a comparative study – not as an object for a hallow emulation. Certain chapters in the history of the colonization in South Africa and the Zionization of Palestine are indeed nearly identical. The ruling methodology of the white settlers in South Africa resembles very closely that applied by the Zionist movement and late Israel against the indigenous population of Palestine since the end of the 19th century. Ever since 1948, the official Israeli policy against some of the Palestinians is more lenient than that of the Apartheid regime; against other Palestinians it is much worse.
But above all, the South African model inspires those concerned with the Palestine cause in two crucial directions: it offers a new orientation for a future solution instead of the two states’ formula that failed – by introducing the one democratic state – and it invigorates new thinking of how the Israeli occupation can be defeated – through Sanctions, Boycott and Divestment (the BDS option).
The facts on the ground are crystal clear: the two states’ solution has dismally failed and we have no spare time to waste in a futile anticipation of another illusory round of diplomatic efforts that would lead to nowhere. As Avnery admits, the Israeli peace camp has failed, so far, to persuade the Israeli Jewish society to try the road of peace. A sober and critical assessment of this camp’s size and force leads to the inevitable conclusion that it has no chance what so ever against the prevailing trends in the Israeli Jewish society. It is doubtful whether it will even keep its very minimal presence on the ground, and there is a great concern it will disappear all together.
Avnery ignores these facts and alleges that the One State Solution is a dangerous panacea to offer to the critically ill patient. All right, so let us prescribe it gradually, but for God’s sake let us remove the patient from the very dangerous medicine we have been forcing down his throat for the last sixty years and which is about to kill him.
For the sake of peace, it is important to expand our research on the South African model and other historical case studies. Because of our failure, we should study carefully any other successful struggle against oppression. All these historical case studies show that the struggle from within and from without reinforced each other and were not mutually exclusive. Even when the sanctions were imposed on South Africa, the ANC continued its struggle and white South Africans did not cease from their attempt to convince their compatriots to give up the Apartheid regime. But there was not one single voice that echoes the article of Avnery who claimed that a strategy of pressure from the outside is wrong because it weakness the chances of change from within. Especially when the failure of the inside struggle is so conspicuous and obvious. Even when the De Klerk government negotiated with the ANC the sanctions regime still continued.
It is also very difficult to understand why Avnery underrates the importance of world public opinion. Without the support this world public opinion gave to the Zionist movement, the Nakbah would not have occurred. Had the international community rejected the idea of partition, a unitary state would have replaced Mandatory Palestine, as indeed was the wish of many members of the UN. However, these members succumbed to a violent pressure by the US and the Zionist lobby and retracted their earlier support for such a solution. And today, if the international community alters its position once more and revises its attitude towards Israel, the chances for ending the occupation would increase enormously and by that maybe also help to avert a colossal bloodshed that would engulf not only the Palestinians but also the Jews themselves.
The call for a One State Solution, and the demand for sanctions, boycott and divestment, has to be read as a reaction against the failure of the previous strategy. A strategy upheld by the political classes but never fully endorsed by the people themselves. And any one who rejects the new thinking out of hand and in such a categorical manner, may be less bothered by what is wrong with this new option and far more troubled by his own place in history. It is indeed difficult to admit personal as well as collective failure; but for the sake of peace it is sometimes necessary to put aside one’s ego. I am inclined to think that way when I read the false narrative Avnery concocted about the Israeli peace movement’s ‘achievements’ so far. He announces that ‘the recognition of the existence of the Palestinian people has become general, and so has the readiness of most Israelis to accept the idea of a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as the capital of both states’. This is a clear case of amputating both the leg and the hand of the patient to fit him to the Bed of Sodom. And even more far fetched is the declaration that ‘We have compelled our government to recognize the PLO, and we shall compel them to recognize Hamas’ – now the rest of patient’s limbs were dispensed with (sorry for the gruesome metaphor but I am forced into it by Avnery’s choice). These assertions have very little in common with the position of the Jewish public in Israel towards peace from 1948 until today. But facts can sometime confuse the issue.
But in order to stifle any debate on the One State Solution or the BDS option, Avnery draws from his magic hat the winning card: ‘but beneath the surface, in the depths of national consciousness, we are succeeding’. Let us thus provide the Palestinians with metal detectors and X-ray equipment – they may discover not only the tunnel, but also the light at its end. The truth is that what lies in the deepest layers of the Israeli national consciousness is far worse from what appears on the surface. And let us hope that it remains their forever and does not bubble to the surface. These are deposits of dark and primitive racism that if allowed to flow over will drown us all in a sea of hatred and bigotry.
Avnery is right when he asserts that ‘there is no doubt that 99.99% of Jewish Israelis want the State of Israel to exist as a state with a robust Jewish majority, whatever its borders’. A successful boycott campaign will not change this position in a day, but will send a clear message to this public that these positions are racist and unacceptable in the 21st century. Without the cultural and economical oxygen lines the West provides to Israel, it would be difficult for the silent majority there to continue and believe that it is possible both to be a racist and a legitimate state in the eyes of the world. They would have to choose, and hopefully like De Klerk they will make the right decision.
Avnery is also convinced that Adam Keller debunked most successfully the argument for a boycott by pointing out that the Palestinians in the occupied territories did not give in to boycott. This is indeed a fine comparison: a political prisoner lies nailed to the ground and dares to resist; as a punishment he is denied even the meager food he received hitherto. His situation is compared to a person who occupied illegally this prisoner’s house and who for the first time is facing the possibility of being brought to justice for his crimes. Who has more to loose? Where is the threat mere cruelty and where is it a justified mean to rectify a past evil?
The boycott will not happen, states Avnery. He should talk with the veterans of the anti-Apartheid movement in Europe. Twenty years passed before they convinced the international community to take action. And they were told, when they began their long journey: it will not work, too many strategic and economic interests are involved and invested in South Africa.
Moreover, adds Avnery, in places such as Germany the idea of boycotting the victims of the Nazis would be rejected out of hand. Quite to the contrary. The action that already has been taken in this direction in Europe has ended the long period of Zionist manipulation of the Holocaust memory. Israel can not justify anymore its crimes against the Palestinians in the name of the Holocaust. More and more people in Europe realize that that the criminal policies of Israel abuse the Holocaust memory and this is why so many Jews are members in the movement for boycott. This is also why the Israeli attempt to cast the accusation of anti-Semitism against the supporters of the boycott had met with contempt and resilience. The members of the new movement know that their motives are humanist and their impulses are democratic. For many of them their action are triggered not only by universal values but also by their respect for the Judeo-Christian heritage of history. It would have been best for Avnery to use his immense popularity in Germany to demand from the society there to recognize their share not only in the Holocaust but also in the Palestinian catastrophe and that in the name of that recognition to ask them to end their shameful silence in the face of the Israeli atrocities in the occupied territories.
Towards the end of his article, Avnery sketches the features of the one state solution out of the present reality: and thus because he does not include the return of the refugees or a change in the regime as components of the solution, he describes today’s dismal reality as tomorrow’s vision. This is indeed an unworthy reality to fight for and nobody I know is struggling for it. But the vision of a One State Solution has to be the exact opposite of the present Apartheid state of Israel as was the post-Apartheid state in South Africa; and this is why this historical case study is so illuminating for us.
We need to wake up. The day Ariel Sharon and George W. Bush declared their loyal support for the two states’ solution, this formula became a cynical means by which Israel can maintain its discriminatory regime inside the 1967 borders, its occupation in the West Bank and the Ghettoization of the Gaza Strip. Anyone who blocks a debate in alternative political models allows the discourse of two states to shield the criminal Israeli policies in the Palestinian territories.
Moreover, not only there are no stones left in the occupied territories with which to build a state – after Israel ruined the infrastructure there in the last six years – a reasonable partition is not offering the Palestinian a mere 20 percent of their homeland. The basis should be at least half of their homeland, on the basis of the 181 map, or similar idea. Here is another useful avenue to explore, instead of embroiling for ever inside the Sodom and Gomorrah stew that the two states solution has produced so far on the ground.
And finally, there will be no solution to this conflict without a settlement of the Palestinian refugees problem. These refugees can not return to their homeland for the same reasons that their brothers and sisters are being expelled from Greater Jerusalem and alongside the wall and their relatives are discriminated against in Israel. They can not return for the same reason that every Palestinian is under the potential danger of been occupied and expelled as long as the Zionist project has not been completed in the eyes of its captains.
They are entitled to opt for the return because it is their full human and political right. They can return because the international community had already promised them that they could. We as the Jews should want them to return because otherwise we will continue to live in a state where the value of ethnic superiority and supremacy overrides any other human and civil value. And we can not promise ourselves and the refugees such a fair and just solution within the framework of the two states’ formula.

Categories: Zionism

No Responses

  1. but says:

    the fact remains that Uri stays and even puts his elderly ass on the line, at Bil’in, while Pappe effs off to London.

  2. comment says:

    I think that the one state solution could be the end vision, and I agree with the fact that the very Israelis have undemined the viability of a two state solution, but I do not see how it can become right now a mobilizing and driving force. Unfortunately.

  3. Hope says:

    You can’t be both right, of course, but let me say that, while I think and always thought that only one united state could give back their human rights to all people living in this land, much as Pappe says, I am also a profound admirer of Avnery’s clear and outspoken analysis of Israel’s situation and his efforts not to let the public forget about it, his capacity to put himself so many times on the Palestinian side. As long as there are people as you both, there is hope. Don’t take to inside fighting.

  4. and hamas says…? says:

    It seems to be that Uri Avnery is somehow closer to both the Fateh and the Hamas vision. Which political forces demand a one state democracy? Pappe demands in the name of suffering Palestinians. Let a one state proposal become prominent among Palestinians in Palestine, and then we’ll talk.

  5. Honesty is the best policy says:

    I was very glad to read Ilan Pappe’s reply. We all know that the only long-term solution is one secular state, not one state based on religious superiority with a vassal-state at its mercy. Whether this is achievable before a two-state interim set-up I do not know, but we should be honest in stating our long term aim. In response to the comment “…and Hamas says..” I would remind readers that the PLO policy was for one secular state until being pushed into agreeing a two-state option before Camp David.

  6. Ilan Pappe’s reply to Avnery says:

    Yes! Yes! Yes!

  7. Thank you says:

    Thanks for posting this thoughtful response. I was troubled by Avnery’s piece last week calling for staying the course with a pathetic two-state solution and am glad you took the time to write more on why a new approach is necessary.

  8. It’s not the number of state, but . . . says:

    In interest commentary (written by Henry Lowi) on this debate between Avnery and Pappe can be found at jewsforajustpeace.com

  9. Israel-Palestine solution, two states or one? says:

    Whether an eventual reconciliation between the Palestinian people and the Jewish Israelis will ever occur is impossible to determine at this time. It may seem outlandish to say this, but it is a fact, as I will attempt to explain. Therefore, both a two-state solution or a one-state solution should be discussed, for both are possibilities, but that is the not key question at this time. (Assuming that we mean two viable genuinely independant, sovereign states, when we say two state solution, and a unified state with full political and social equality, at least in legal and political rights and as a goal, and not an apartheid state, when we say one state solution)(for social equality cannot be magically obtained overnight, even in a socialist state, much less in a capitalist one. The effects of generations of inequality in education, economic wealth, employment, housing, etc. do not vanish instantly, even in the absence of continuing discrimination).

    Why? Because neither are possible now. Further, neither will be possible in the future, unless either 1) the political line followed by the Israeli ruling elite changes profoundly, or 2) the political line followed by the Jewish Israeli masses changes profoundly and they overthrow the current Israeli ruling elite, thru elections or revolution, or 3) Israel suffers a great strategic military defeat which creates the material conditions for a profound change in the political line followed by the Israeli elite and/or the Jewish Israeli masses. (I say Israeli elite and Jewish Israeli masses, because the Israeli elite is all Jewish and the overwhelming majority of Palestinian Israeli masses—the so-called Arab Israelis already favor some form of real democracy).

    Discussing at great length the form the completion of the Palestinian National Democratic revolution will take and its relation to Israel—the Zionist colonialist entity—which is a fait accompli and is populated by some five million Jewish human beings—and this is what we’re talking about when we discuss one state or two states, is a little like talking about what will be the precise form of the state when we have socialism in the US.

    The present line being followed by the Israeli elite and masses is threefold. The first prong of Israeli policy is gradual strangulation and attempted demoralization of the remanents of the Palestinian nation living in Mandate Palestine, through economic blockade from outside assistance and timely transfer of tax revenues, land confiscation, house demolitions, detentions, closures, water seizure, agricultural destruction, and constant impediments to daily life and humiliation through interference with the right to travel freely in all the POT and increased oppression and agitation against the Palestinians in Israel. All of this, of course, likely increases the Palestinian emmigration rate, increases poverty, hunger, desparation, and crime, and increases the prospect of widespread fratricidal violence in the POT and ethnic cleansing in Israel. The second prong of Israeli policy is gradual de facto annexation of more and more Palestinian lands through continued building of Jewish only armed paramilitary settlements, Jewish only roads, the Grea Enclosure Wall, and military outposts and bases in East Jerusalem and the West Bank. All of this is punctuated by daily incidents of direct phyical violence against people—beatings, shootings, missile attacks, sound barrier breaking jet overflights and so on— in all of the POT, especially Gaza, and the growing presence of increasing numbers of Israeli soldiers stationed in the West Bank and near Gaza.

    What is all this leading to? It may lead to one of two things. It may lead to the effective annexation of about half or more of the West Bank, and to the establishment of a Palestinian pseudo-state, or bantustania, in the middle of the West Bank and the permanent imprisonment of the Gaza Palestinians, all policed by Palestinian quisling police. Sort of an updated Allon Plan, where few Palestinian lackeys drink tea with the Israeli PM and US President, win another Noble, then feast on the lion’s share of “Palestinian aid,” backed by the Palestinian police or “army” (but no heavy weapons beyond machine guns allowed) who play a similar role for the Israelis that the Jordanian police and army do by keeping the refugee camps in line for the Hashemite king. (This will probably require, however, a robust civil war among the Palestinians first. Arafat already showed how this game ends. It’s played out, as we say here in the US. And it is hard to imagine Abbas and Fateh winning a civil war with Hamas without Israeli assistance, which would so disgrace Fateh it could only rule thru fascist means. Although they are already getting a lot of financial assistance and weapons. With Israel’s recent declaration of the Hamas slate illegal, this may be enough, but it’s doubtful).

    Another possibility is that there will be another intifada. Another Palestinian national uprising from Gaza to the West Bank and East Jerusalem involving intense civil disobediance, demonstrations, strikes of any POT Palestinians still working for Israeli Jews, and widespread civil disobediance, demonstrations, and strikes among Palestinian Israelis.

    The vise of Israeli occupation and oppression is squeezing the Palestinians in the territories and in Israel relentlessly ever harder. Harder and harder and harder. Something has to give. The Palestinians are a determined, proud, people who have been hardened by sixty years of Israeli occupation. Sixty years. Especially in the POT. But in Israel too. They are over one million-two hundred thousand in Gaza, over two million in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and over one million-two hundred thousand in Israel. They are not simply going to say “uncle.” A new national uprising is inevitable.

    The question is, will this inevitable outburst of national frustration and energy occur in isolation, in which it will likely be crushed, unless it is assisted by strong support by Jewish Israelis, which seems unlikely at least initially, or can it be coordinated with other events in the Middle East which can provide it strong support? Israel is preparing for another war in Lebanon. Hezbollah and its Lebanese allies are also preparing. At least the most adventurous, reckless, wings of the US and Israeli ruling elites are preparing for war with Iran, a war which could involve direct attacks on Israel from Iran and might involve Lebanon, Syria, and the possible collapse of the Jordanian monarchy, which could destablize Israel’s whole eastern front.

    Cooler heads, especially in the US, including several influential retired generals, are counseling against this. But many of them did so before the US invaded Iraq, and in the end they were ignored. Bush and Cheney are still in power. They may yet convince themselves that it is Iran and Syria which are causing their defeat in Iraq (if they haven’t already) and attack them, like earlier US Presidents decided not so long ago that attacking North VietNam, Laos, and Cambodia was essential to winning the war in SouthVietnam.

    One would think they would know better. How can they fail to know better? But they—Bush and Cheney— are likely as incapable of “knowing better” as Hitler was was incapable of knowing that invading the Soviet Union would be a disaster. Can’t beat the British air force, establish air supremacy and invade little England? Operation Barbarossa will solve everything. Invade the largest country in the world, requiring staggeringly long supply lines. They all hate their government. “Just kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will collapse on its own.” Hitler said that. They’ll be toasting the German Army with vodka and caviar. Sound familiar? Apparently Hitler had not heard, or did not believe, that the Russians and other Soviets were rather pleased to have jobs and be eating during the twenties when it took a wheelbarrow full of deuschmarks to buy a loaf of bread and in the thirties when the rest of the world was suffering thru the Great Depression. Astounding as it may seem, Bush and Cheney are just as deluded, in their All-American way. They really think they will be better able to win in Iraq if they attack Iran.

    They are gripped by imperial delusions that all of Iran’s minorities will join them, along with most of the majority population and sweep the hated mullahs away. Their brains are so infected with the twin viruses of white racism and American chauvanism that they wildly underestimate their adversaries and just as wildly overestimate themselves, here, the limits of American technologically based military power and the fighting ability and spirit of American soldiers. Most American soldiers don’t want to fight for oil in Iraq or Iran. If they didn’t know that’s what it’s all about four years ago, they do now. They’re 90 percent economic conscripts in the regular army. In their second or third Iraq tour when they thought they’d fight in Desert Storm II, if they had to fight at all. Guess what? It’s not Desert Storm II. And 90 percent guys and gals in the reserves thought they were going to be weekend warriors once a month and spend a couple weeks every summer working out, shooting at the range, doing some fun training exercises, and drinking lots of beer and making a little extra money. Iraq? IRAN? Come on now.

    In fact, most of the minorities will probably support the Persians, and even if they don’t would simply sit on the sidelines far, far, far from Tehran, like Iraq’s Kurds. What about “Arabistan,” where the oil is? First, they didn’t heed Saddam’s call. Why should they join the Americans? Don’t they just luuuuuuv America? it didn’t seem so in 1979 when the joined the Islamic Revolution against America’s puppet the Shah en masse. (oh but that was soooooo long ago. surely that’s irrelevant.) Second, the Iranians will want the oil shut off anyway. It won’t take much to do that. If any Arabian minority goes traitor to the Crusaders, the Persians will be happy to deal with them when the Crusaders go home. Ably assisted by their Iraqi Shia Arab allies. (Which food for thought the Arabic Iranians have probably already chewed on and digested, unlike Bush and Cheny).

    Even if all of Iran’s minorities join the infidels, which they won’t, this would only, “only” leave about forty of forty-five million or so Persians to deal with. And Iran’s enormous 850,00 man army. We’re America. We’re 300 million strong. What’s a little country where the majority group is only 40 or 45 million people? Well……for starters, it’s their country and that matters. And we won’t be sending “America.” We’ll be sending fifty or one hundred thousand troops. If we can find them. Somehow. (as compared to Iraq, where five or six million Sunnis who–so far—are doing most of the fighting against the US and tying down 150,00 US troops and over 100,000 mercenaries and another 15,000 UK troops who are probably worth twice that many US quite nicely). And don’t think the US and/or Israel will just bomb Iran. Bombs won’t overthrow the Iranian government. They will retalitate. Ferociously. Like Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon. With much bigger rockets. And a whole lot more of them. Only the Iranian Army is, gee, 20 or 30 times bigger than Hezbollah’s militia. Oh well, the grass is always greener, it seems……

    In such a situation, a Palestinian national uprising—a new intifada with a military component—in alliance with other forces thrown into battle with Israel and the US might have a chance to call into question Israel’s Iron Wall and annexation-bantustan consensus. Lurking in the background, and perhaps not so far in the background or for so long, will be the question of whether Israel and the US will escalate to the stage of nuclear war if faced with the possiblity of strategic defeat in conventional war. Israel may be faced with the choice of making a real peace, or annilihating its enemies (and perhaps many of its own people) with its vast nuclear arsenal. Paradoxically, it is just possible that Israel will want peace more than the US, because being small and living in the Middle East, it (or rather, a substantial number of its people and leaders) may realize that using its nuclear weapons would be a disaster for it as well as its enemies. Then again, if a Lieberman or Netanyahu (or Net-Lieb bloc) is confronted with a strategic conventional defeat, it is hard to imagine them not using nuclear weapons.

    Perhaps this scenario is too depressing for some to wish to contemplate. But it’s reality. The war in Iraq is intensifying, not dwindling. The likely Democratic nominees are talking about securing US “national interests in Iraq,” not ending the war period. These same Democrats, particularly Obama and Clinton have endorsed and repeated Bush and Cheney’s rhetoric about Iran. (and why not? they represent the same class, they share the same ambition of world hegemony). Bush and Cheney themselves are in office for another 20 months, unless they are impeached. And they do not wish their Party legacy to be an electoral disaster in 2008. They may well believe that a bigger, wider war and even bigger lies about “terrorist threats to our security” gives their Party—which may still be lead by Cheney—a better chance to win than admission of defeat in Iraq and peace with Iran. (Objective, economic forces independant of the will of man—intertwined crises of the US dollar and national debt, a looming overproduction crisis and financial crisis foreshadowed or beginning with the glut in the US housing market now plauged with an alarming high and rising foreclosure rate, and a massive surplus of accumulated private capital seeking outlets for investment at the highest possible rates of return also compel the US imperialists to wage a bigger and wider war. They are not interested in building low cost housing, or a truly modern, 21rst century mass transportation system in the US, or a universal health single payer care system, or substantially improving the US educational system, for instance, because all of these would involve dealing mortal blows to powerful entrenced interests and would not maximize profits on investment. Any talk of such things is mere lip service. Better to conquer the much more nearly virgin resources and markets of Iraq, Iran, and the rest of West Asia and the world.)

    Hezbollah dealt Israel a tactical defeat in the 2006 summer war. It is stronger politically than it was before the war. A year has nearly passed since that war ended, and Hezbollah claims it is stronger militariliy than it was a year ago. However doubtful that may be, the Israeli militarists are not going to give Hezbollah another five years to prepare for the next war. One Hezbollah brigade kept Israel—which had mobilized its reserves, while Hezbollah did not—- from reaching the Litani River, except for a last minute, highly risky parachute drop behind Hezbollah’s front line the IDF could not crack. See, How Hezbollah Defeated Israel, a three article series, at conflictsforum.org. Who knows what they—and the Iranians—and Syrians—might do in five years if left in peace that long?

    This last question is undoubtedly plauging both the Israeli and US elites. They know what they have done to the Palestinian, Lebanese, Iraqi, Iranian, and Syrian people, even if many of their people don’t. (Ignorance resulting from a combination of an endless, nearly ubiquitous, big lie propaganda campaign in the mass corporate media—and negligent or willful, self-centered, hedonistic blindness, especially in this age of the Internet) They also know, or at least have moments, glimmers, of terrifying insight when they realize that the courage, fighting spirit and determination of the Hezbollah fighters and the Iraqi and Palestinian fighters is vastly superior to that of their troops. Look what those fighters have done thus far, despite being incredibly, overwhelmingly, outgunned. And out planed, out artilleried, out tanked, etc. This is, of course, attributed in racist and chauvanist fashion to “religious fanaticism,” or “irrational, insane hatred,” and not to the fact that they are fighting just wars on their own soil, of national salvation and defense as opposed to unjust wars of imperialist conquest in foreign countries. Nonetheless, it must be hard for even the most deluded of the Israeli or US rulers not have at least an occasional moment of terrifying doubt when reflecting on how their seemingly mighty armies have been powerless to defeat, demoralize, and intimidate men who have fought two of the most awesome, capital-intensive, mobile war machines in world history—war machines also vastly superior in defensive body armor, medical relief, and mobility, as well as sheer firepower—- with little more than hand-held, portable guns, bombs, and rocket launchers carried by fighters often dressed in kaffeyas, shirts, and pants. Imagine what they might do if significantly better armed? With a new generation of anti-tank and anti-helicopter and anti-fighter portable rocket launchers, for instance. Like a 13 or 14 year old bully who has been stunned by the punching power and fearlessness of a 10 year old he’s been picking on and tormenting for the last five years, they wonder in moments of doubt: what will he do to me in a few years from now? That is one reason compelling the Israeli and US imperialists to launch further aggressions sooner rather than later.

    So by all means discuss the hypocritical absurdities of equating enclosure ghettos, a Gaza prison, and a central West Bank string of segregated bantustania surrounded by a Great Ghetto Wall of Palestine with an “independant Palestinian state.” An “independent state” that does not control its own borders, water resources, air and electromagnetic space, foreign policy, and is forbidden to have an army worthy of the name while surrounded by the army, air force, navy, and civilian paramilitaries of a regional superpower. The only thing it will control is its own people and perhaps their garbage disposal. And discuss the truly great, glorious potential that a unified, genuinely democratic secular state in all of Mandate Palestine would have with two of the most dynamic, educated peoples in the world as its populace.

    But don’t forget that the Israeli state is a colonialist, Zionist Jewish-supremacist state and most Israeli Jews are still steadfastly loyal to it. And the Israeli elite is incorrigibly wedded to it and will almost certainly remain so unless even if it seems impossible to maintain without launching a nuclear holocaust. That would be truly going full circle for the Jewish people. The Zionist elite has always allied itself with the strongest imperialist power in the Middle East, first with the Turks, then playing the double game of using the British against the Palestinians until the last possible minute, then breaking with the British and then forging an alliance with the Americans. It seems inconceivable that a large section of the Israeli elite would unite with the Palestinian democrats against die hard Zionist rightists like Lieberman and Netanyahu. It could happen, but only in the direst of circumstances. As a section of the South African elite broke with the die hard apartheidists.

    But they were outnumbered what, nine or ten to one? And depended on South African blacks for most of their labor force. And had been isolate internationally. And were a much less important ally of the US.

    Nonetheless, this does suggest that a boycott movement is critical. And it must be mainly in the US. And focus on military aid by the US to Israel and companies like Caterpillar which make those infernal bulldozers from hell. Because as long as the Israeli elite has the US unconditionally behind it, as it does now, it will make no meaningful concessions to the Palestinians, much less give up the Jewish state itself.

  10. Erik van Praag says:

    I think that Alan Pappe is right when he states that it is very unlikely that the vast majoriy of the Israelian public will ever accept a decent two state solution in the foreseeable future. Neither will they accept a one state solution. Actually, I think any solution is not anymore within the discretion of the Israelian people and government. Which solution will come out of this now is completely dependent on the position external powers, like the US, Europe, Russia, China and others collectively) will take. As soon as they together will take a position, it will be the end of Israel as we know it today. Personally I think the chance for a one state solution are greater tan for a two state solution, but it may still take a while. (Erik van Praag, Netherlands)

  11. On distrust, and other says:

    Regarding the distrusts between both sides, it’s true, but hardly a reason to reject a one state solution. It’s not like there was a whole lot of trust in south africa during the apartheid years, and there’s probably still distrust, but the situation is considerably better now.

    I agree with Mr. Pappe’s response. In fact, I responded in e-mail to Mr. Avnery pointing out the fallacy of thinking that a boycott against israel won’t work because it is not working against Palestinians. The analogy is simply flawed on the basis that Israelis have something to lose with a boycott, but not the Palestinians. I also had pointed out that apartheid was already here.

    I have immense respect for Mr. Avnery. However, I think gush shalom’s insistence on the 2 state solution is at this point causing more arm than good. It is akin to a businessman who’s invested a lot of money, and still losing, but continues to believe that he’s close to making it, and thus puts yet more money in his venture because he refuse to accept that all the money he’s spent thus far didn’t work and won’t work. And eventually, the stubborn businessman goes bankrupt. The businessman would have been better to step back and reassess his situation. Likewise, gush-shalom should step back (maybe close shop for 6months) and reassess whether its position is the right one.

  12. OK, but how? says:

    I wish I could buy Pappe’s vision, but I fear that it ignores the layers of mutual distrust and fear that characterize both sides in this conflict. Two states with an economic union and the next stage federation seem to me to offer the most realistic solution.

  13. a one state solution says:

    Isreali’s that support a one state solution should do so openly and very visibly in European capitals. They should organise their political work to be heard . Many Europeans do not even know a one state idea exists. Since it is the only viable option (if there is an option left at all) it should be defended and clarified where it matters. Isreali internal politics will soon reach its ( deserved) state of irrelevance.
    Peter Cohen Amsterdam, The Netherlands

  14. Israel-Palestine solution, Continue says:

    Invade the largest country in the world, requiring staggeringly long supply lines. They all hate their government. “Just kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will collapse on its own.” Hitler said that. They’ll be toasting the German Army with vodka and caviar. Sound familiar? Apparently Hitler had not heard, or did not believe, that the Russians and other Soviets were rather pleased to have jobs and be eating during the twenties when it took a wheelbarrow full of deuschmarks to buy a loaf of bread and in the thirties when the rest of the world was suffering thru the Great Depression. Astounding as it may seem, Bush and Cheney are just as deluded, in their All-American way. They really think they will be better able to win in Iraq if they attack Iran.

    They are gripped by imperial delusions that all of Iran’s minorities will join them, along with most of the majority population and sweep the hated mullahs away. Their brains are so infected with the twin viruses of white racism and American chauvanism that they wildly underestimate their adversaries and just as wildly overestimate themselves, here, the limits of American technologically based military power and the fighting ability and spirit of American soldiers. Most American soldiers don’t want to fight for oil in Iraq or Iran. If they didn’t know that’s what it’s all about four years ago, they do now. They’re 90 percent economic conscripts in the regular army. In their second or third Iraq tour when they thought they’d fight in Desert Storm II, if they had to fight at all. Guess what? It’s not Desert Storm II. And 90 percent guys and gals in the reserves thought they were going to be weekend warriors once a month and spend a couple weeks every summer working out, shooting at the range, doing some fun training exercises, and drinking lots of beer and making a little extra money. Iraq? IRAN? Come on now.

    In fact, most of the minorities will probably support the Persians, and even if they don’t would simply sit on the sidelines far, far, far from Tehran, like Iraq’s Kurds. What about “Arabistan,” where the oil is? First, they didn’t heed Saddam’s call. Why should they join the Americans? Don’t they just luuuuuuv America? it didn’t seem so in 1979 when the joined the Islamic Revolution against America’s puppet the Shah en masse. (oh but that was soooooo long ago. surely that’s irrelevant.) Second, the Iranians will want the oil shut off anyway. It won’t take much to do that. If any Arabian minority goes traitor to the Crusaders, the Persians will be happy to deal with them when the Crusaders go home. Ably assisted by their Iraqi Shia Arab allies. (Which food for thought the Arabic Iranians have probably already chewed on and digested, unlike Bush and Cheny).

    Even if all of Iran’s minorities join the infidels, which they won’t, this would only, “only” leave about forty of forty-five million or so Persians to deal with. And Iran’s enormous 850,00 man army. We’re America. We’re 300 million strong. What’s a little country where the majority group is only 40 or 45 million people? Well……for starters, it’s their country and that matters. And we won’t be sending “America.” We’ll be sending fifty or one hundred thousand troops. If we can find them. Somehow. (as compared to Iraq, where five or six million Sunnis who–so far—are doing most of the fighting against the US and tying down 150,00 US troops and over 100,000 mercenaries and another 15,000 UK troops who are probably worth twice that many US quite nicely). And don’t think the US and/or Israel will just bomb Iran. Bombs won’t overthrow the Iranian government. They will retalitate. Ferociously. Like Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon. With much bigger rockets. And a whole lot more of them. Only the Iranian Army is, gee, 20 or 30 times bigger than Hezbollah’s militia. Oh well, the grass is always greener, it seems……

    In such a situation, a Palestinian national uprising—a new intifada with a military component—in alliance with other forces thrown into battle with Israel and the US might have a chance to call into question Israel’s Iron Wall and annexation-bantustan consensus. Lurking in the background, and perhaps not so far in the background or for so long, will be the question of whether Israel and the US will escalate to the stage of nuclear war if faced with the possiblity of strategic defeat in conventional war. Israel may be faced with the choice of making a real peace, or annilihating its enemies (and perhaps many of its own people) with its vast nuclear arsenal. Paradoxically, it is just possible that Israel will want peace more than the US, because being small and living in the Middle East, it (or rather, a substantial number of its people and leaders) may realize that using its nuclear weapons would be a disaster for it as well as its enemies. Then again, if a Lieberman or Netanyahu (or Net-Lieb bloc) is confronted with a strategic conventional defeat, it is hard to imagine them not using nuclear weapons.

    Perhaps this scenario is too depressing for some to wish to contemplate. But it’s reality. The war in Iraq is intensifying, not dwindling. The likely Democratic nominees are talking about securing US “national interests in Iraq,” not ending the war period. These same Democrats, particularly Obama and Clinton have endorsed and repeated Bush and Cheney’s rhetoric about Iran. (and why not? they represent the same class, they share the same ambition of world hegemony). Bush and Cheney themselves are in office for another 20 months, unless they are impeached. And they do not wish their Party legacy to be an electoral disaster in 2008. They may well believe that a bigger, wider war and even bigger lies about “terrorist threats to our security” gives their Party—which may still be lead by Cheney—a better chance to win than admission of defeat in Iraq and peace with Iran. (Objective, economic forces independant of the will of man—intertwined crises of the US dollar and national debt, a looming overproduction crisis and financial crisis foreshadowed or beginning with the glut in the US housing market now plauged with an alarming high and rising foreclosure rate, and a massive surplus of accumulated private capital seeking outlets for investment at the highest possible rates of return also compel the US imperialists to wage a bigger and wider war. They are not interested in building low cost housing, or a truly modern, 21rst century mass transportation system in the US, or a universal health single payer care system, or substantially improving the US educational system, for instance, because all of these would involve dealing mortal blows to powerful entrenced interests and would not maximize profits on investment. Any talk of such things is mere lip service. Better to conquer the much more nearly virgin resources and markets of Iraq, Iran, and the rest of West Asia and the world.)

    Hezbollah dealt Israel a tactical defeat in the 2006 summer war. It is stronger politically than it was before the war. A year has nearly passed since that war ended, and Hezbollah claims it is stronger militariliy than it was a year ago. However doubtful that may be, the Israeli militarists are not going to give Hezbollah another five years to prepare for the next war. One Hezbollah brigade kept Israel—which had mobilized its reserves, while Hezbollah did not—- from reaching the Litani River, except for a last minute, highly risky parachute drop behind Hezbollah’s front line the IDF could not crack. See, How Hezbollah Defeated Israel, a three article series, at conflictsforum.org. Who knows what they—and the Iranians—and Syrians—might do in five years if left in peace that long?

    This last question is undoubtedly plauging both the Israeli and US elites. They know what they have done to the Palestinian, Lebanese, Iraqi, Iranian, and Syrian people, even if many of their people don’t. (Ignorance resulting from a combination of an endless, nearly ubiquitous, big lie propaganda campaign in the mass corporate media—and negligent or willful, self-centered, hedonistic blindness, especially in this age of the Internet) They also know, or at least have moments, glimmers, of terrifying insight when they realize that the courage, fighting spirit and determination of the Hezbollah fighters and the Iraqi and Palestinian fighters is vastly superior to that of their troops. Look what those fighters have done thus far, despite being incredibly, overwhelmingly, outgunned. And out planed, out artilleried, out tanked, etc. This is, of course, attributed in racist and chauvanist fashion to “religious fanaticism,” or “irrational, insane hatred,” and not to the fact that they are fighting just wars on their own soil, of national salvation and defense as opposed to unjust wars of imperialist conquest in foreign countries. Nonetheless, it must be hard for even the most deluded of the Israeli or US rulers not have at least an occasional moment of terrifying doubt when reflecting on how their seemingly mighty armies have been powerless to defeat, demoralize, and intimidate men who have fought two of the most awesome, capital-intensive, mobile war machines in world history—war machines also vastly superior in defensive body armor, medical relief, and mobility, as well as sheer firepower—- with little more than hand-held, portable guns, bombs, and rocket launchers carried by fighters often dressed in kaffeyas, shirts, and pants. Imagine what they might do if significantly better armed? With a new generation of anti-tank and anti-helicopter and anti-fighter portable rocket launchers, for instance. Like a 13 or 14 year old bully who has been stunned by the punching power and fearlessness of a 10 year old he’s been picking on and tormenting for the last five years, they wonder in moments of doubt: what will he do to me in a few years from now? That is one reason compelling the Israeli and US imperialists to launch further aggressions sooner rather than later.

    So by all means discuss the hypocritical absurdities of equating enclosure ghettos, a Gaza prison, and a central West Bank string of segregated bantustania surrounded by a Great Ghetto Wall of Palestine with an “independant Palestinian state.” An “independent state” that does not control its own borders, water resources, air and electromagnetic space, foreign policy, and is forbidden to have an army worthy of the name while surrounded by the army, air force, navy, and civilian paramilitaries of a regional superpower. The only thing it will control is its own people and perhaps their garbage disposal. And discuss the truly great, glorious potential that a unified, genuinely democratic secular state in all of Mandate Palestine would have with two of the most dynamic, educated peoples in the world as its populace.

    But don’t forget that the Israeli state is a colonialist, Zionist Jewish-supremacist state and most Israeli Jews are still steadfastly loyal to it. And the Israeli elite is incorrigibly wedded to it and will almost certainly remain so unless even if it seems impossible to maintain without launching a nuclear holocaust. That would be truly going full circle for the Jewish people. The Zionist elite has always allied itself with the strongest imperialist power in the Middle East, first with the Turks, then playing the double game of using the British against the Palestinians until the last possible minute, then breaking with the British and then forging an alliance with the Americans. It seems inconceivable that a large section of the Israeli elite would unite with the Palestinian democrats against die hard Zionist rightists like Lieberman and Netanyahu. It could happen, but only in the direst of circumstances. As a section of the South African elite broke with the die hard apartheidists.

    But they were outnumbered what, nine or ten to one? And depended on South African blacks for most of their labor force. And had been isolate internationally. And were a much less important ally of the US.

    Nonetheless, this does suggest that a boycott movement is critical. And it must be mainly in the US. And focus on military aid by the US to Israel and companies like Caterpillar which make those infernal bulldozers from hell. Because as long as the Israeli elite has the US unconditionally behind it, as it does now, it will make no meaningful concessions to the Palestinians, much less give up the Jewish state itself.

  15. Israel-Palestine solution, Continue says:

    What is all this leading to? It may lead to one of two things. It may lead to the effective annexation of about half or more of the West Bank, and to the establishment of a Palestinian pseudo-state, or bantustania, in the middle of the West Bank and the permanent imprisonment of the Gaza Palestinians, all policed by Palestinian quisling police. Sort of an updated Allon Plan, where few Palestinian lackeys drink tea with the Israeli PM and US President, win another Noble, then feast on the lion’s share of “Palestinian aid,” backed by the Palestinian police or “army” (but no heavy weapons beyond machine guns allowed) who play a similar role for the Israelis that the Jordanian police and army do by keeping the refugee camps in line for the Hashemite king. (This will probably require, however, a robust civil war among the Palestinians first. Arafat already showed how this game ends. It’s played out, as we say here in the US. And it is hard to imagine Abbas and Fateh winning a civil war with Hamas without Israeli assistance, which would so disgrace Fateh it could only rule thru fascist means. Although they are already getting a lot of financial assistance and weapons. With Israel’s recent declaration of the Hamas slate illegal, this may be enough, but it’s doubtful).

    Another possibility is that there will be another intifada. Another Palestinian national uprising from Gaza to the West Bank and East Jerusalem involving intense civil disobediance, demonstrations, strikes of any POT Palestinians still working for Israeli Jews, and widespread civil disobediance, demonstrations, and strikes among Palestinian Israelis.

    The vise of Israeli occupation and oppression is squeezing the Palestinians in the territories and in Israel relentlessly ever harder. Harder and harder and harder. Something has to give. The Palestinians are a determined, proud, people who have been hardened by sixty years of Israeli occupation. Sixty years. Especially in the POT. But in Israel too. They are over one million-two hundred thousand in Gaza, over two million in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and over one million-two hundred thousand in Israel. They are not simply going to say “uncle.” A new national uprising is inevitable.

    The question is, will this inevitable outburst of national frustration and energy occur in isolation, in which it will likely be crushed, unless it is assisted by strong support by Jewish Israelis, which seems unlikely at least initially, or can it be coordinated with other events in the Middle East which can provide it strong support? Israel is preparing for another war in Lebanon. Hezbollah and its Lebanese allies are also preparing. At least the most adventurous, reckless, wings of the US and Israeli ruling elites are preparing for war with Iran, a war which could involve direct attacks on Israel from Iran and might involve Lebanon, Syria, and the possible collapse of the Jordanian monarchy, which could destablize Israel’s whole eastern front.

    Cooler heads, especially in the US, including several influential retired generals, are counseling against this. But many of them did so before the US invaded Iraq, and in the end they were ignored. Bush and Cheney are still in power. They may yet convince themselves that it is Iran and Syria which are causing their defeat in Iraq (if they haven’t already) and attack them, like earlier US Presidents decided not so long ago that attacking North VietNam, Laos, and Cambodia was essential to winning the war in SouthVietnam.

    One would think they would know better. How can they fail to know better? But they—Bush and Cheney— are likely as incapable of “knowing better” as Hitler was was incapable of knowing that invading the Soviet Union would be a disaster. Can’t beat the British air force, establish air supremacy and invade little England? Operation Barbarossa will solve everything. Invade the largest country in the world, requiring staggeringly long supply lines. They all hate their government. “Just kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will collapse on its own.” Hitler said that. They’ll be toasting the German Army with vodka and caviar. Sound familiar? Apparently Hitler had not heard, or did not believe, that the Russians and other Soviets were rather pleased to have jobs and be eating during the twenties when it took a wheelbarrow full of deuschmarks to buy a loaf of bread and in the thirties when the rest of the world was suffering thru the Great Depression. Astounding as it may seem, Bush and Cheney are just as deluded, in their All-American way. They really think they will be better able to win in Iraq if they attack Iran.

    They are gripped by imperial delusions that all of Iran’s minorities will join them, along with most of the majority population and sweep the hated mullahs away. Their brains are so infected with the twin viruses of white racism and American chauvanism that they wildly underestimate their adversaries and just as wildly overestimate themselves, here, the limits of American technologically based military power and the fighting ability and spirit of American soldiers. Most American soldiers don’t want to fight for oil in Iraq or Iran. If they didn’t know that’s what it’s all about four years ago, they do now. They’re 90 percent economic conscripts in the regular army. In their second or third Iraq tour when they thought they’d fight in Desert Storm II, if they had to fight at all. Guess what? It’s not Desert Storm II. And 90 percent guys and gals in the reserves thought they were going to be weekend warriors once a month and spend a couple weeks every summer working out, shooting at the range, doing some fun training exercises, and drinking lots of beer and making a little extra money. Iraq? IRAN? Come on now.

    In fact, most of the minorities will probably support the Persians, and even if they don’t would simply sit on the sidelines far, far, far from Tehran, like Iraq’s Kurds. What about “Arabistan,” where the oil is? First, they didn’t heed Saddam’s call. Why should they join the Americans? Don’t they just luuuuuuv America? it didn’t seem so in 1979 when the joined the Islamic Revolution against America’s puppet the Shah en masse. (oh but that was soooooo long ago. surely that’s irrelevant.) Second, the Iranians will want the oil shut off anyway. It won’t take much to do that. If any Arabian minority goes traitor to the Crusaders, the Persians will be happy to deal with them when the Crusaders go home. Ably assisted by their Iraqi Shia Arab allies. (Which food for thought the Arabic Iranians have probably already chewed on and digested, unlike Bush and Cheny).

    Even if all of Iran’s minorities join the infidels, which they won’t, this would only, “only” leave about forty of forty-five million or so Persians to deal with. And Iran’s enormous 850,00 man army. We’re America. We’re 300 million strong. What’s a little country where the majority group is only 40 or 45 million people? Well……for starters, it’s their country and that matters. And we won’t be sending “America.” We’ll be sending fifty or one hundred thousand troops. If we can find them. Somehow. (as compared to Iraq, where five or six million Sunnis who–so far—are doing most of the fighting against the US and tying down 150,00 US troops and over 100,000 mercenaries and another 15,000 UK troops who are probably worth twice that many US quite nicely). And don’t think the US and/or Israel will just bomb Iran. Bombs won’t overthrow the Iranian government. They will retalitate. Ferociously. Like Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon. With much bigger rockets. And a whole lot more of them. Only the Iranian Army is, gee, 20 or 30 times bigger than Hezbollah’s militia. Oh well, the grass is always greener, it seems……

    In such a situation, a Palestinian national uprising—a new intifada with a military component—in alliance with other forces thrown into battle with Israel and the US might have a chance to call into question Israel’s Iron Wall and annexation-bantustan consensus. Lurking in the background, and perhaps not so far in the background or for so long, will be the question of whether Israel and the US will escalate to the stage of nuclear war if faced with the possiblity of strategic defeat in conventional war. Israel may be faced with the choice of making a real peace, or annilihating its enemies (and perhaps many of its own people) with its vast nuclear arsenal. Paradoxically, it is just possible that Israel will want peace more than the US, because being small and living in the Middle East, it (or rather, a substantial number of its people and leaders) may realize that using its nuclear weapons would be a disaster for it as well as its enemies. Then again, if a Lieberman or Netanyahu (or Net-Lieb bloc) is confronted with a strategic conventional defeat, it is hard to imagine them not using nuclear weapons.

    Perhaps this scenario is too depressing for some to wish to contemplate. But it’s reality. The war in Iraq is intensifying, not dwindling. The likely Democratic nominees are talking about securing US “national interests in Iraq,” not ending the war period. These same Democrats, particularly Obama and Clinton have endorsed and repeated Bush and Cheney’s rhetoric about Iran. (and why not? they represent the same class, they share the same ambition of world hegemony). Bush and Cheney themselves are in office for another 20 months, unless they are impeached. And they do not wish their Party legacy to be an electoral disaster in 2008. They may well believe that a bigger, wider war and even bigger lies about “terrorist threats to our security” gives their Party—which may still be lead by Cheney—a better chance to win than admission of defeat in Iraq and peace with Iran. (Objective, economic forces independant of the will of man—intertwined crises of the US dollar and national debt, a looming overproduction crisis and financial crisis foreshadowed or beginning with the glut in the US housing market now plauged with an alarming high and rising foreclosure rate, and a massive surplus of accumulated private capital seeking outlets for investment at the highest possible rates of return also compel the US imperialists to wage a bigger and wider war. They are not interested in building low cost housing, or a truly modern, 21rst century mass transportation system in the US, or a universal health single payer care system, or substantially improving the US educational system, for instance, because all of these would involve dealing mortal blows to powerful entrenced interests and would not maximize profits on investment. Any talk of such things is mere lip service. Better to conquer the much more nearly virgin resources and markets of Iraq, Iran, and the rest of West Asia and the world.)

    Hezbollah dealt Israel a tactical defeat in the 2006 summer war. It is stronger politically than it was before the war. A year has nearly passed since that war ended, and Hezbollah claims it is stronger militariliy than it was a year ago. However doubtful that may be, the Israeli militarists are not going to give Hezbollah another five years to prepare for the next war. One Hezbollah brigade kept Israel—which had mobilized its reserves, while Hezbollah did not—- from reaching the Litani River, except for a last minute, highly risky parachute drop behind Hezbollah’s front line the IDF could not crack. See, How Hezbollah Defeated Israel, a three article series, at conflictsforum.org. Who knows what they—and the Iranians—and Syrians—might do in five years if left in peace that long?

    This last question is undoubtedly plauging both the Israeli and US elites. They know what they have done to the Palestinian, Lebanese, Iraqi, Iranian, and Syrian people, even if many of their people don’t. (Ignorance resulting from a combination of an endless, nearly ubiquitous, big lie propaganda campaign in the mass corporate media—and negligent or willful, self-centered, hedonistic blindness, especially in this age of the Internet) They also know, or at least have moments, glimmers, of terrifying insight when they realize that the courage, fighting spirit and determination of the Hezbollah fighters and the Iraqi and Palestinian fighters is vastly superior to that of their troops. Look what those fighters have done thus far, despite being incredibly, overwhelmingly, outgunned. And out planed, out artilleried, out tanked, etc. This is, of course, attributed in racist and chauvanist fashion to “religious fanaticism,” or “irrational, insane hatred,” and not to the fact that they are fighting just wars on their own soil, of national salvation and defense as opposed to unjust wars of imperialist conquest in foreign countries. Nonetheless, it must be hard for even the most deluded of the Israeli or US rulers not have at least an occasional moment of terrifying doubt when reflecting on how their seemingly mighty armies have been powerless to defeat, demoralize, and intimidate men who have fought two of the most awesome, capital-intensive, mobile war machines in world history—war machines also vastly superior in defensive body armor, medical relief, and mobility, as well as sheer firepower—- with little more than hand-held, portable guns, bombs, and rocket launchers carried by fighters often dressed in kaffeyas, shirts, and pants. Imagine what they might do if significantly better armed? With a new generation of anti-tank and anti-helicopter and anti-fighter portable rocket launchers, for instance. Like a 13 or 14 year old bully who has been stunned by the punching power and fearlessness of a 10 year old he’s been picking on and tormenting for the last five years, they wonder in moments of doubt: what will he do to me in a few years from now? That is one reason compelling the Israeli and US imperialists to launch further aggressions sooner rather than later.

    So by all means discuss the hypocritical absurdities of equating enclosure ghettos, a Gaza prison, and a central West Bank string of segregated bantustania surrounded by a Great Ghetto Wall of Palestine with an “independant Palestinian state.” An “independent state” that does not control its own borders, water resources, air and electromagnetic space, foreign policy, and is forbidden to have an army worthy of the name while surrounded by the army, air force, navy, and civilian paramilitaries of a regional superpower. The only thing it will control is its own people and perhaps their garbage disposal. And discuss the truly great, glorious potential that a unified, genuinely democratic secular state in all of Mandate Palestine would have with two of the most dynamic, educated peoples in the world as its populace.

    But don’t forget that the Israeli state is a colonialist, Zionist Jewish-supremacist state and most Israeli Jews are still steadfastly loyal to it. And the Israeli elite is incorrigibly wedded to it and will almost certainly remain so unless even if it seems impossible to maintain without launching a nuclear holocaust. That would be truly going full circle for the Jewish people. The Zionist elite has always allied itself with the strongest imperialist power in the Middle East, first with the Turks, then playing the double game of using the British against the Palestinians until the last possible minute, then breaking with the British and then forging an alliance with the Americans. It seems inconceivable that a large section of the Israeli elite would unite with the Palestinian democrats against die hard Zionist rightists like Lieberman and Netanyahu. It could happen, but only in the direst of circumstances. As a section of the South African elite broke with the die hard apartheidists.

    But they were outnumbered what, nine or ten to one? And depended on South African blacks for most of their labor force. And had been isolate internationally. And were a much less important ally of the US.

    Nonetheless, this does suggest that a boycott movement is critical. And it must be mainly in the US. And focus on military aid by the US to Israel and companies like Caterpillar which make those infernal bulldozers from hell. Because as long as the Israeli elite has the US unconditionally behind it, as it does now, it will make no meaningful concessions to the Palestinians, much less give up the Jewish state itself.

  16. Israel-Palestine solution, Continue says:

    In such a situation, a Palestinian national uprising—a new intifada with a military component—in alliance with other forces thrown into battle with Israel and the US might have a chance to call into question Israel’s Iron Wall and annexation-bantustan consensus. Lurking in the background, and perhaps not so far in the background or for so long, will be the question of whether Israel and the US will escalate to the stage of nuclear war if faced with the possiblity of strategic defeat in conventional war. Israel may be faced with the choice of making a real peace, or annilihating its enemies (and perhaps many of its own people) with its vast nuclear arsenal. Paradoxically, it is just possible that Israel will want peace more than the US, because being small and living in the Middle East, it (or rather, a substantial number of its people and leaders) may realize that using its nuclear weapons would be a disaster for it as well as its enemies. Then again, if a Lieberman or Netanyahu (or Net-Lieb bloc) is confronted with a strategic conventional defeat, it is hard to imagine them not using nuclear weapons.

    Perhaps this scenario is too depressing for some to wish to contemplate. But it’s reality. The war in Iraq is intensifying, not dwindling. The likely Democratic nominees are talking about securing US “national interests in Iraq,” not ending the war period. These same Democrats, particularly Obama and Clinton have endorsed and repeated Bush and Cheney’s rhetoric about Iran. (and why not? they represent the same class, they share the same ambition of world hegemony). Bush and Cheney themselves are in office for another 20 months, unless they are impeached. And they do not wish their Party legacy to be an electoral disaster in 2008. They may well believe that a bigger, wider war and even bigger lies about “terrorist threats to our security” gives their Party—which may still be lead by Cheney—a better chance to win than admission of defeat in Iraq and peace with Iran. (Objective, economic forces independant of the will of man—intertwined crises of the US dollar and national debt, a looming overproduction crisis and financial crisis foreshadowed or beginning with the glut in the US housing market now plauged with an alarming high and rising foreclosure rate, and a massive surplus of accumulated private capital seeking outlets for investment at the highest possible rates of return also compel the US imperialists to wage a bigger and wider war. They are not interested in building low cost housing, or a truly modern, 21rst century mass transportation system in the US, or a universal health single payer care system, or substantially improving the US educational system, for instance, because all of these would involve dealing mortal blows to powerful entrenced interests and would not maximize profits on investment. Any talk of such things is mere lip service. Better to conquer the much more nearly virgin resources and markets of Iraq, Iran, and the rest of West Asia and the world.)

    Hezbollah dealt Israel a tactical defeat in the 2006 summer war. It is stronger politically than it was before the war. A year has nearly passed since that war ended, and Hezbollah claims it is stronger militariliy than it was a year ago. However doubtful that may be, the Israeli militarists are not going to give Hezbollah another five years to prepare for the next war. One Hezbollah brigade kept Israel—which had mobilized its reserves, while Hezbollah did not—- from reaching the Litani River, except for a last minute, highly risky parachute drop behind Hezbollah’s front line the IDF could not crack. See, How Hezbollah Defeated Israel, a three article series, at conflictsforum.org. Who knows what they—and the Iranians—and Syrians—might do in five years if left in peace that long?

    This last question is undoubtedly plauging both the Israeli and US elites. They know what they have done to the Palestinian, Lebanese, Iraqi, Iranian, and Syrian people, even if many of their people don’t. (Ignorance resulting from a combination of an endless, nearly ubiquitous, big lie propaganda campaign in the mass corporate media—and negligent or willful, self-centered, hedonistic blindness, especially in this age of the Internet) They also know, or at least have moments, glimmers, of terrifying insight when they realize that the courage, fighting spirit and determination of the Hezbollah fighters and the Iraqi and Palestinian fighters is vastly superior to that of their troops. Look what those fighters have done thus far, despite being incredibly, overwhelmingly, outgunned. And out planed, out artilleried, out tanked, etc. This is, of course, attributed in racist and chauvanist fashion to “religious fanaticism,” or “irrational, insane hatred,” and not to the fact that they are fighting just wars on their own soil, of national salvation and defense as opposed to unjust wars of imperialist conquest in foreign countries. Nonetheless, it must be hard for even the most deluded of the Israeli or US rulers not have at least an occasional moment of terrifying doubt when reflecting on how their seemingly mighty armies have been powerless to defeat, demoralize, and intimidate men who have fought two of the most awesome, capital-intensive, mobile war machines in world history—war machines also vastly superior in defensive body armor, medical relief, and mobility, as well as sheer firepower—- with little more than hand-held, portable guns, bombs, and rocket launchers carried by fighters often dressed in kaffeyas, shirts, and pants. Imagine what they might do if significantly better armed? With a new generation of anti-tank and anti-helicopter and anti-fighter portable rocket launchers, for instance. Like a 13 or 14 year old bully who has been stunned by the punching power and fearlessness of a 10 year old he’s been picking on and tormenting for the last five years, they wonder in moments of doubt: what will he do to me in a few years from now? That is one reason compelling the Israeli and US imperialists to launch further aggressions sooner rather than later.

    So by all means discuss the hypocritical absurdities of equating enclosure ghettos, a Gaza prison, and a central West Bank string of segregated bantustania surrounded by a Great Ghetto Wall of Palestine with an “independant Palestinian state.” An “independent state” that does not control its own borders, water resources, air and electromagnetic space, foreign policy, and is forbidden to have an army worthy of the name while surrounded by the army, air force, navy, and civilian paramilitaries of a regional superpower. The only thing it will control is its own people and perhaps their garbage disposal. And discuss the truly great, glorious potential that a unified, genuinely democratic secular state in all of Mandate Palestine would have with two of the most dynamic, educated peoples in the world as its populace.

    But don’t forget that the Israeli state is a colonialist, Zionist Jewish-supremacist state and most Israeli Jews are still steadfastly loyal to it. And the Israeli elite is incorrigibly wedded to it and will almost certainly remain so unless even if it seems impossible to maintain without launching a nuclear holocaust. That would be truly going full circle for the Jewish people. The Zionist elite has always allied itself with the strongest imperialist power in the Middle East, first with the Turks, then playing the double game of using the British against the Palestinians until the last possible minute, then breaking with the British and then forging an alliance with the Americans. It seems inconceivable that a large section of the Israeli elite would unite with the Palestinian democrats against die hard Zionist rightists like Lieberman and Netanyahu. It could happen, but only in the direst of circumstances. As a section of the South African elite broke with the die hard apartheidists.

    But they were outnumbered what, nine or ten to one? And depended on South African blacks for most of their labor force. And had been isolate internationally. And were a much less important ally of the US.

    Nonetheless, this does suggest that a boycott movement is critical. And it must be mainly in the US. And focus on military aid by the US to Israel and companies like Caterpillar which make those infernal bulldozers from hell. Because as long as the Israeli elite has the US unconditionally behind it, as it does now, it will make no meaningful concessions to the Palestinians, much less give up the Jewish state itself.

  17. Jason says:

    I disgree there One state solution will Lead Isreal kill every last Palastine men womena and child west Bank or Gaze strip. Isreal controls everything goes in and out.Gaze strip and west Bank totle in merrcy Isreal. Beyound Isreal WMD could special Boilgical onces would make quilk work UN. South Africa never had these strings pull other wish we never end apartic.

  18. Jason says:

    I think more likly get palatian kill in you madness.
    Israel goverment will defand Zionist project to end with WMD . I hope rest world readly die sack of 10 million people call Palastians. I am not one them. I would blame Isrealie people ever got power kill Palstine west bank and gaze strip first.

Leave a Reply

Featured Posts

Gaza is not Bagdad – Yet

Both within the ranks of Hamas and Fatah, there are hot headed trigger happy adventurists ...