Deciding Israel's future

[shira]

Deciding Israel's future
Robert Fulford, National Post
Published: Saturday, June 20, 2009


The solution to Israel's internal problems, if you believe Avigdor Lieberman, is cartographic as well as political. Lieberman, who holds the job of foreign minister mainly because his Yisrael Beiteinu party controls 15 crucial seats in the Knesset, thinks he knows how to set up a new Palestinian state and resolve the problem of Jewish settlements in one international decision: Instead of moving people, move borders. He wants to redraw the map so that mainly Jewish communities fall within Israel's new borders and mainly Arab communities fall within the new Palestinian state.

For instance, Umm el-Fahm (pop. 43,300), now Israel's largest Arab city, would become Palestinian. The West Bank would lose many Jewish settlements. Israel would lose many Arabs. It makes a kind of sense, except to Israeli Arabs. Lieberman's plan reveals, not for the first time, that Israeli Arabs live a two-tiered life. Economically, they are Israelis, provided by Israel with relatively good jobs and the best social services in the Middle East. Politically, they tend to favour the Palestinian cause.

This gives them a unique view of the future: They look forward to a Palestinian state without actually wanting to be part of it. In fact, they will do anything for a Palestinian state except live in it.

This may not be the most absurd aspect of life in Israel but it's close....

cont'd...

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=1714970

[sellitman]

1. Israel treating Arabs good?

How did the facts ever get posted on DU?

:popcorn:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

2. Of course life in Israel will be better than life in a putative Palestinian state.

Very few people debate that. Isreal is prosperous, Palestine if it comes into being will be impoverished. Israel can afford decent public services, and even though it effectively discriminates against Arab areas in providing them, they're still better than the Palestinians will be able to afford.

I am unsurprised but depressed to see you inmplicitly endorsing Avigdor Lieberman - aren't Likud hardline enough for you?

What Lieberman proposes might well suit Israel fine. But it won't bring peace, because it won't satisfy the Palestinians.

[shira]

3. it's not just the economy that attracts Israeli Arabs to Israel

something about that civil rights package too.....they don't get that in Palestine.

Lieberman's cartography isn't significantly different than Clinton's proposals 9 years ago (ergo, 2 states for 2 people). And just because he's mentioned in an article doesn't mean I "endorse" all his views anymore than you endorse all Hamas' views.

[IndianaGreen]

4. Do you denounce and reject the racist Avigdor Lieberman?

Just as Hillary Clinton urged Barack Obama to "denounce and reject" Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, we now urge "pro-Israel" DUers to denounce and reject Avigdor Lieberman. Lieberman and Farrakhan are both racists!

[shira]

6. he sucks, but not as much as....

one of our former Presidents trying to legitimize Hamas, whose goons are out in Iran right now beating up Persians for Ahmanidjit. If our former President were any better than Lieberman, he'd be helping Palestinians get rid of the thugs abusing them and making prospects for peace remote. Think about it - how much more could someone possibly loathe Palestinians than to try to legitimize and empower Hamas?

[azurnoir]

7. LOL so now Carter hates Palestinians too

as to "legitimizing" Hamas that happened when they won a majority number of Parliamentary seats in 2006 and it was Bush who is touted as being so Pro Israel not Carter who demanded those election against PA advice.
As to Hamas in Iran explain how they got there what route did they take Shira, is Egypt complicit in this?

[shira]

8. nothing funny about it.....Carter should put pressure on Hamas to grant Paln's some civil liberties

oh wait, my bad, I forgot....true progressives shouldn't ever bring up Pal'n civil rights or human rights unless Israel can be blamed for violations. Not even if Hamas or Fatah is 100x worse than anything the IDF can muster.

It's good and moral to be for the Persian people against their Iranian oppressors but not okay to be for Palestinians who cannot stand up against their own ruling goons and thugs who share the same brutish mentality as Iranian theocrats in charge.

:eyes:

yeah, LOL. really funny. That's true friendship by Carter, who says he really loves the Palestinian people.

============================

Hamas took over Gaza illegally in a coup. They won a majority of seats in their own 'congress', not the presidency. And simply electing unaccountable, oppressive "representation" that eventually turns Gaza into a dictatorship is not democracy that should be supported - eg. where are the Paln's who investigate Hamas and keep them accountable for their actions? Right, not a democracy that deserves progressive support.

The naval blockade didn't start until 2007. How do you think Hamas HQ got to be in Syria?

[azurnoir]

14. Take a look at a map Shira

your claims of Hamas helping Iran are pretty fatuous at best, but oh I forgot a couple of people twitted JPost claiming these was happening so we're to accept it as THE TRUTH, so inform us do you think the Kurds or other Iraqi's helped Hamas get into Iran?

As to rest of the antiprogreessive dribble you posted seen it heard it all before it is an intentional misrepresentation of what Mr Carter said

As far as Hamas taking Gaza by an "illegal" coup that has been discussed many time before, it was a civil war at best fermented by Israels friend George W Bush who first forced elections and then when the results were not as planned started to train and arm Fatah to do the same

what I find so telling here is that Obama has said little different than Bush yet when it comes from the mouth of a "Schwartzen" with an Arab sounding name Israel and its American supporters are in an uproar.

Oh about that map here, my Egypt remark was with a water route in mind

[shira]

15. that map doesn't take away from Hamas in Syria and the Gaza blockade starting in 2007

your claims of Hamas helping Iran are pretty fatuous at best, but oh I forgot a couple of people twitted JPost claiming these was happening so we're to accept it as THE TRUTH, so inform us do you think the Kurds or other Iraqi's helped Hamas get into Iran?

Robert Fisk reported the same thing.

As to rest of the antiprogreessive dribble you posted seen it heard it all before it is an intentional misrepresentation of what Mr Carter said

what exactly from my last post was antiprogressive or an intentional misrepresentation of Carter?

As far as Hamas taking Gaza by an "illegal" coup that has been discussed many time before, it was a civil war at best fermented by Israels friend George W Bush who first forced elections and then when the results were not as planned started to train and arm Fatah to do the same

call it whatever you want, Hamas ruling Gaza and booting Fatah is NOT what Palestinians in either Gaza or the W.Bank voted for, but it's what they're forced to deal with.

what I find so telling here is that Obama has said little different than Bush yet when it comes from the mouth of a "Schwartzen" with an Arab sounding name Israel and its American supporters are in an uproar.

Your inference of irrational Jewish racism against a black President with an Arab name is disgusting.

See here the differences so far between Obama and Bush:
http://fresnozionism.org/archives/1267

[azurnoir]

16. I did not make any inference about Jews

perhaps you were unaware that the majority of American voted for Obama so that claim is patently false
but an unsurprising claim coming from you.

As to your post when has Obama claimed that Israel should give up the large settlement blocs what he has said is that they should not continue growing,

As to Iran even Bush would not bomb them and to be honest I find your faux concern about what is going on in Iran sickening the only real concern is antiPalestinian propaganda under the flimsy veil of Hamas of course

[shira]

17. sure you did - why bring up "shwartze" with an Arab sounding name that Israel has a problem with

btw, you blew it a while back with your faux concern during the Gaza blockade when you admitted Egypt didn't have to do anything to help Palestinians out by opening Rafah to them.

So save your claim of being "sick" about my concerns for Iranians. If it were up to you, Palestinians would be used as political footballs forever.

[azurnoir]

20. Shira you just admitted I was referring to Israel

you smacked down your own claim and you are aware that it is against forum rules to conflate Jews and Israel

PS back before the election in the US I predicted that a win here by Obama would be reciprocated by a win by right wingers in Israel and well here we are

[shira]

21. what? now you're doing a Rev. Wright

you're referring to "Israel" but bringing up "shwartze" (yiddish for black)?

:eyes:

it's insulting that you think you can pull this one off and we won't know better.

just as Rev. Wright tried to replace "jews" with "zionists".

you blew it with the "schwartze" reference. :(

[azurnoir]

29. Keep trying you blew your own case

and in the title line that's the best part as far as your fatuous insults they too ring hollow

[LeftishBrit]

9. Carter isn't supporting Hamas; just seeking to involve all parties in talks including Hamas

He may well be wasting his time (Hamas can only be involved if they want to be, and so far there are few signs of that); but it's not as though he was campaigning for Hamas to win the next election.

FTR, I don't think that America or Israel or any other country *can* have much influence on which government Palestine elects, and attempting to do so at a party-political level can only make matters worse. Bush and the Israeli hawkish politicians haven't been campaigning for Hamas either - but they might just as well have been, in terms of the effect they've had. For that matter, Hamas didn't campaign for the Likud - but they probably did more to tip the balance in a close election than almost anyone else.

[shira]

11. Carter wants them more legitimized with a stronger foothold on power

Hamas then sees that NO MATTER what they do to Palestinians or Israelis, Carter 'has their back' and they have ZERO reason to reform for the better.

Why should Hamas change if they get all they want by being as extreme and brutal as possible?

[LeftishBrit]

12. 'Why should they change ... ff Carter has their back? ' Carter doesn't have that much power

What Carter does or doesn't do isn't going to have much influence on whether Hamas stays in power.

A more effective alternative than Abbas in Palestine *would* make a difference. I suspect that even now Hamas would lose an election, if there wasn't fraud which is a big 'if' of course.

[shira]

13. something's definitely happening and Carter seems to be part of it

"Obama, also a Democrat, seems to be going in the direction that Carter has long advocated — engagement with longtime foes Iran and Syria. So far Obama, like the Bush administration, has drawn the line at meeting with Hamas. But in a speech in Cairo last week, Obama seemed to suggest some basis for believing that Palestinian militants who rule Gaza might be drawn into the peace process."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i4QJUK8NY6yvRqafI8-3PRd93ujgD98OIISG3

[IndianaGreen]

18. There is no Hamas in Iran

However, there is evidence that Hizbollah goons are being used to beat up pro-democracy demonstrators.

Your smear of Jimmy Carter is the typical swill we hear from American neocons and Israeli uber-zionists.

[shira]

22. can you link Fisk's claims about Hezbollah please?

[IndianaGreen]

25. I posted Fisk's report upstairs a week ago

but I got this which is just as good because it sounds like what Fisk and some of the Tweets have said:

However, on Saturday and Sunday, hundreds of thousands of opponents of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad clashed with Hizbollah thugs dressed in police uniforms in the heart of Iran's capital, pelting them with rocks and setting fires in the worst unrest in Tehran since the 1979 Islamic revolution. They accused the hard-line president of using fraud to steal the election victory from his reformist rival.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/iran_election_the_beginning_of.html

Hizbollah is up to no good.

[shira]

28. here's something from Fisk

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fiskrsquos-world-in-tehran-fantasy-and-reality-make-uneasy-bedfellows-1710762.html

but he actually disputes that it's Hezbollah.

[shaayecanaan]

5. Black Americans have it better in America than they would in Africa...

therefore they should accept their lot and whatever Whitey wants to offer them, or they can move to Liberia. Its an old refrain.

I am sceptical because any redistribution that would put a serious dent in Israel's Arab population would account for a significant amount of the best land in Israel. Israel can barely stomach losing the Golan Heights, let alone the northern district.

[LeftishBrit]

10. I think the Israeli Arabs should have a right to choose to live in Israel or a Palestinian state..

if they choose Israel, great. After all, most of them were born and brought up there (which Lieberman incidentally was not).

There does need to be a Palestinian state. It's unfortunate that the likes of Lieberman are using this as an excuse for kicking out the Israeli Arabs - just as some antisemites of the past used Zionism as an excuse for trying to get rid of their own country's 'Jewish problem' as their sort put it. However, being hijacked by some racists, did not make either Zionism then or a Palestinian state now an invalid cause.

[IndianaGreen]

19. We can always have a binational state which would solve all the problems

Right of return to those that actually lived in the land, not to some people with no valid historical connections to the land.

There were always more Jews in the Diaspora than in the Kingdoms of Israel and Judea.

[shira]

23. yeah, that binational idea works so well elsewhere.....and so much for self-determination, right?

[IndianaGreen]

24. Everyone will be a citizen with full rights, and the state must be ATHEIST

this is the only way to keep religion in check.

[shira]

26. secular is not enough? you think both sides will buy into an atheist state?

[IndianaGreen]

27. I believe that the state must be atheist, just as Lenin did.

Religion is a private affair as far as the state is concerned, which Lenin also said.

How else can we prevent the theocrats from infringing on people's rights?