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.
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.]
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.]
No comments:
Post a Comment