Peace in our time in Israel (one state solution) and other Myths

The logic in this article is so one sided it almost flies around in ever decreasing circles and that it's prone to disappearing up its own fundamental rectum. Frankly the dilettante nature of this 'pro Israel/ USA ' is wantonly naive if not biased.

The whole article is focused on ISRAEL'S security and assorted paranoid fears..

What makes you think that the "Arabs" are thrilled or cool about the USA dominance in Israel or that a nutter strategic right minority in the new Israel could bomb Palestine/ Arab states ....oh wait it exists now?

And Israel has track record of giving a shit about international law ( when it comes to extra territorial adventures). 

Simply put NO COUNTRY IN THE MIDDLE EAST is safe from the paranoid nationalism of another...there are no absolute guarantees anywhere...

All meaningful negotiations are based on good faith...where's the good faith here?

 If I were a Palestinian/ Arab negotiator why would I accept the underlying biased assumptions, that status quo = albeit in a Bigger state is good?

The truth is that the USA has and will continue to be the spanner in the works...so long as it's hegemonic interests holds the Veto, no solution is really possible.

Just for interest what say both sides and the meddlesome and petulant mental Gorilla (USA) were to agree on a two state solution pre 67 borders and THEIR ONLY international protectorate for their international airport ... um, in between the two nations. i.e. paid for by both sides and staffed by UN troops.. and managed by a tripartite committee (Israel, Palestine and the UN, chaired/ controlled by UN) ? I'd ask where are the RISKS any different that anywhere else in the Middle East. 

 

["A one-state solution is only way forward for Israel and Palestine"] if you are a Jewish extremist or a settler. Is what is more honest.
What the “one staters” are suggesting has 4 MAJOR Flaws.
First, it rewards(encourages) those who have dispossessed the Palestinians in the West bank etc. Illegal is illegal. How are they going to unpick a litany of case law precedents fairly? Possession is 9/10s of the law …if you are Jewish.

Second. As the General's son said 'Arab ' neighbourhoods already have a dearth or absence of resources/ services how is this going to change in a greater Israel? Like the rump Zionists etc are going to accept 'their budget share facilities down graded (i.e. settlers lose currently enjoyed water levels for lessor amounts so the Palestinians can have more) to allow for the money to be spent where it's most needed on the Israeli Arab ghettoes or to provide the new population to the same currently enjoyed level of services/facilities etc
The devil is in the detail national budget.

Third. The Jews already have the Best property/land. By what mechanism, given Israel is already a receiver of USA ($ 2 billion p.a. Admitted to), are Palestinian refugees after 60 years of destitution going to be able to buy properties. Instant underclass.

In Australia the Conservatives resent Social Security and 6000 queue jumpers (sic) refugees and the 'hand outs' (sic) as it is . Imagine if suddenly 14 million( similar proportions) became citizens over night ?
By what fanciful notion do these people think Israelis are any LESS self interested, resistant to change/difference i.e. are more generous human-beings than Aussies. They sure don't have a history of such altruism/ generosity of spirit..... in short they are people. Not inherently good or bad just people.
Time for some reality. It must go two states if only to maintain any sense of fairness and to establish a rule of law in Israel with regards to ownership of land in the occupied/squatter settlements.

I don't accept that the Two state 'solution' (sic) (read reality ) is dead ...not until every last Arab and or Palestinian is dead.
All that will be achieved by the One state (sic) will be temporary, in historic terms, and the apartheid will be further institutionalised. The only ones who will be 'temporarily content' will be the extremist Zionists buoyed by this success they will still play the 'existential threat' (fear) card and will do so until they control all the land in described in the Torah … perhaps beyond. Of course the Arabs will oblige for their own fears making it a self fulfilling prophecy . Can anyone point to a nation once 'secure ' in their own boundaries didn't go for hegemonic empire 'by necessity to ensure resources' (aka greed)? e.g USA .

It is functionally naive to suggest otherwise. Therefore the notion that a larger Israel will solve anything .
Neither will the Arabs simply say well that's that and not harbour resentment . Even the Jewish history should tell the Zionists and others that....How many years did they live in 'exile' ? human nature isn't a light switch!
Let me be clear about where I stand .To me the whole debate is a nonsense , it ignores the realities in that it has been couched by the extremist Jewish Zionists V the equally emotionally motivated Muslims. No one has seriously asked what is the problem that needed solving ...Answer ...a 'homeland' where Jews are such that they can't be deported ( THE holocaust sic)* .
What I'm disputing is the sloppy logic and the flawed (loaded)*methodology * that ignores the above Human Nature.

It seems to me that there is two options .
1. Israel gets its act together and puts the extremist back in their proportional box and acknowledge the reality that a Zionist Israel is treading water in a hostile sea in which case it WILL disappear by 'the sword' (in a 'spring', 'summer' what ever)
2. Or become an integrated part of the by then less hostile sea ...One state one in which no minority can be deported.
So where's the disagreement you ask ? The key is in the fine print. FIRST Israel has to get it's act together.... etc. There is a rapidly closing of opportunity to do this to avoid well internal war....( including Arab) Israeli V Zionist ….the settlers etc become too greater mass. My point here is that while the issue is manageable the two states declared, heading off a serious conflict that would involve the wider Arabs resulting in destruction of Zionist Israel and therefore failure of the original objective. A one state REVOLUTION now would simply compound the problem.
Practically, any such change within Israel would have to be EVOLUTIONARY. Declaring two states back to the 67 boarders would bring the electoral gerrymander giving the extremists (the controlling minority) into proportion of the total Israeli electorate. Both side would win.
I have no doubt that once Israel becomes truly Democratic and in time Israel will become the more stable Israelisine in which expulsion could be constitutionally impossible. The original objective would be therefore guaranteed NOW and in both the 2 state interim stage and ultimate inevitable and only long-term stable solution.

*[N.B. I'm not denying the mass extermination of Jews and OTHERS or the totally obscenity of it ..just the assumed proprietary (PR) ownership of the term and the virtual ignoring of the equally horrific extermination of others (e.g. including Gypsies.. Romany ). Question where is their 'homeland'?.. their problem? Why the difference? But that's another question.]

Capitalism, Libertarianism and other myths

I obviously agree with the ability to say to a boss or any authority figure 'no, it's not my choice' or even 'no it's not my need'... And yes, I sound a bit like a Buddhist on cranky pills.
To me the KEY issue is a little more fundamental to the continuation of life and the under pinning moral imperatives.
I look at it like freedom of speech we nominally have that right to express our views BUT it's the HOW we use/abuse that right that is determined by greater imperative(s)that is the important defining factor.

ergo we have the right to jump on a plane buy BS products for PERSONAL conditioned illusionary happiness. The question is SHOULD we do so with out regard to the truth and the reality of the larger imperatives (as per the previous paragraph)

One should never forget the most irrefutable fundamental truth of everything....In *closed* environment (societies and the EARTH) EVERYTHING effects EVERYTHING else.
I have given the examples of traffic flows along highways and through malls that when taken in CONTEXT of the WHOLE one minor action has cumulative effect leading to seemingly disproportionate consequences. I'd STRONGLY RECOMMEND everyone Read "Critical Mass... how one thing leads to another" by Philip Ball. This book clearly demonstrates this principal with everything from electrons to you name it.
The problem with commonly touted Chaos theory is the Massive Misinformational, over simplistic "butterfly effect".
Back to the prosaic one person buying an Iphone 5 because it's cheap or even free with a encouragement to spend more on The cell.
Firstly 'your' individual decision is insignificant even to Apple they want millions of insignificant individuals to decide for a myriad of JUSTIFICATIONS although the key motivator is the deliberately stimulated (Cromagnon/Neanderthal Emotion/instinct) want. The Emotional temporary pay off makes the decision ... polluted reason JUSTIFIES it.
Apple do this to make a profit... they have NO regard or interest in the 'externalities' read consequences. Argue what you what you will on the emotional level but the moral reality is that " can the world afford the CUMULATIVE effect of 80% of the world's resources (read ability to support the continuation human existence) by 20% of the population (i.e. the 'developed world/ western world)?
You pick the major philosophy/religion all have a similar thrust ....biblically speaking "yes YOU are your brother's keeper"... Yet again I also repeat It isn't that you indulge your emotions ...an inherent human trait, but HOW and by how MUCH.
There in lies the inherent flaw in the much admired Libertarianism and or Capitalism (not exclusively)as they are practised today they are predicated on Absolutes and were formulated BEFORE the science of everything relates/effects or leads to another. However both these philosophies tend to focus on the individual ignoring or treating the self (the individual) gratification as the sole purpose/objective of life relegating all other factors as 'externalities' and therefore irrelevant , having no effect on the 'self' . Which in a closed environment and under the first law of thermodynamics ...impossible if not wantonly inane.
I don't dispute the 'right' to anything merely caution about the dismissal of The MORAL DIMENSION what is now 'myopic focus' on the use (abuse) of that right in isolation of the indisputable cumulative effect.

What's the matter with U.S. media it seems worse than other countries?

What is the matter with U.S. Media it seem to be worse than other countries ? In two senses it is.

The most important isn't at first as obvious to the US citizen until one stands off from being an American and look with a incisive mind at to what is different about American public (consumers of news [sic]).

To wit I've included the following piece.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/patrick-pexton-what-about-israels-nuclear-weapons/2012/08/31/390e486a-f389-11e1-a612-3cfc842a6d89_print.html

To someone from outside the US this is as I wrote on another site

[With all respect.., I would rate the piece as worthy of a high school 'journalism' (?) effort.

Who amongst us didn't know virtually everything written in the article and more? Then again he is writing for USA and it's citizenry not to mention under their paranoid military manufacturing complex and assorted Corporates' domination.

A trawl through the 'Guardian' archives goes a lot further actually discussing the nature of the nuke site, how the Israelis fooled the USA and the inspectors way back.....What this says about Israel's paranoia duplicity towards its friends I'm not entirely sure.

What is missing is the simple logic that the USA (probably Russia, France et al) has for years been able to monitor from space and via sophisticated seismic equipment can tell any underground or air testing of nukes anywhere in the world. Yet we're lead to believe by this article that the US et sec doesn't have very convincing evidence either way. What? A piss ant country with what 6 million people (same population of Iraq) like Israel which is the US's biggest recipient of aid, particularly military aid, hold off US dominance? I know the US myopic supply of weapons has a history akin to like a water buffalo with a bad attitude, (all bull and no long term smarts) …. But really...they (US) don't know ?

The only alternative is that if Israel has nukes they haven't tested them tested above ground since the 70's or underground since the late 80's … That I find very hard to believe.

The implicit relevant point is that American's are generally so jingoistic they are more often than not wilfully ignorant/ disinterested in anything that doesn't pertain to the US or them personally. The horrific implications of the Israel/ USA V the “Arab” (sic) (Iran is Persian...not Arab) world conflict is more obvious to the rest of the world but not the average American....they believe they'll be safe,they're not ! 911 AGW the rise of China (they are the U.S.A.'s primary bankers and it's in the process of losing it's $ dominance).

The U.S. Public seem to believe that they invented resistance to larger powers and the concepts in their Declaration of Independence and Constitution. The reality is they didn't! One wonder what they think will stop the hegemonic nations from doing exactly what the U.S. founding father's did at the first available option. What makes them believe that watching their dead coming home from a U.S. initiated war of perceived interest (corporate interests most likely), a war they were pressured into, is going to endear them to the U.S.their trade practices don't help either. The U.S public believe they are safe from human nature...again they're not!   

Once one accepts this limitation 'America’s exceptionalism' all the other disasters/ limitations are emotionally justifiable. Keep in mind unless we guard against it the sales maxim holds true “ emotion decides and logic simply justifies”. If one assumes one is superior to others then “people who don't conform to my conflated criteria keeping them in their place (subservience) becomes logical.” e.g.  I got rich by hard work (sick) therefore anyone less than me is deficient in some way and needs punishing or my patronising." i.e. I got rich so the fact that they aren't means they're lazy so force them to work ' (like there's an endless chance of jobs).... 

Let's get real there isn't because corporations et al want it that way it forces down wages (less overheads) making more profit. And when the current host country's population demand more wages the corps will simply move to a cheaper employee market. 

 Even America's famous military market dominance is being challenged...Other countries are competing and the corporations are selling weapons to increasingly dubious purchasers .....e.g. the mercenaries/weapons dealers who have No allegiances except to the $ . I.e. the biggest private army in the world is training Somali jihardists etc.

  

As for his finish about 'if he was a child of the Jewish Holocaust' ...relevance? Justification for what he knows ? (i.e. HE READS PAPERS OUTSIDE THE U.S. PERHAPS)...the existence of Israel's nukes.]

The final point can be gleaned from analysing the author's most banal comment about ' because it is hard doesn't mean it shouldn't be done' what a cop out! Tell the truth sir it isn't done because the powers to be (the military manufacturing complex, Commercial and Jewish commercial interests with whom they deal, don't want it done. They have already punished a media outlet of broadcasting an Israel “unfriendly” story by cancelling ads. There is little doubt in my mind of the US government (regardless of side) is a captive of these interests.

Sadly the party system (either side) encourages this.