The Unmaking of Israel (Robert Wright & Gershom Gorenberg)

[Bloggingheads]

[Wonderment]

...is a 19th century philosophy that came to fruition in the 20th century and that will collapse of its own internal contradictions in the 21st.

The "long view" is not what Gershom suggests in his optimism about a 2-state resolution. The long view favors a 1-state solution. In a decade or two the "fantasy land" will be 2-state, not 1-state. Netanyahu is an anachronism, and so is Abu-Mazen. Oh, and so is Gershom. The next generation of Israeli and Palestinians will create a nonviolent secular post-Zionist state of all its citizens from the Jordan to the Mediterranean.

[Graybeard]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

The next generation of Israeli and Palestinians will create a nonviolent secular post-Zionist state of all its citizens from the Jordan to the Mediterranean.

I wish I could believe that.

[opposable_crumbs]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

...is a 19th century philosophy that came to fruition in the 20th century and that will collapse of its own internal contradictions in the 21st.

The "long view" is not what Gershom suggests in his optimism about a 2-state resolution. The long view favors a 1-state solution. In a decade or two the "fantasy land" will be 2-state, not 1-state. Netanyahu is an anachronism, and so is Abu-Mazen. Oh, and so is Gershom. The next generation of Israeli and Palestinians will create a nonviolent secular post-Zionist state of all its citizens from the Jordan to the Mediterranean.

Young Israelis seem to be more nationalist and isolationist, in stark contrast to the global movements which are very visible at the moment. They look increasingly Westwards to the US. A secular but isolated nation, with a history of putting down the natives, and a secular society which contains a high profile liberal Jewish identity, one which is largely celebrated rather than harassed by conservatives, not always the case in Israel.


There was an excellent piece in the Daily Beast which interviewed Moshe Dayan's widow. Were she 35 rather than 95, she would have been called naive or even a traitor.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswee...ts-course.html

[Wonderment]

Young Israelis seem to be more nationalist and isolationist, in stark contrast to the global movements which are very visible at the moment. They look increasingly Westwards to the US

.

Don't forget 20% (and growing) of young Israelis are Palestinians. Israel needs more integration and intermarriage. As two-state continues to fail and fail and fail more, smart hopeful people will have nowhere to look but towards desegregation and full democratic rights for Palestinians in the WB and Gaza.

There was an excellent piece in the Daily Beast which interviewed Moshe Dayan's widow. Were she 35 rather than 95, she would have been called naive or even a traitor.

Moshe Dayan's daughter was a prominent leftist Knesset member. I think her name is Yael. Israel is not lacking in liberal cosmopolitan Jews. The key problem is getting both Israeli Jews and Palestinians out of their bubbles and interacting to build peace together -- not at the Abu Mazen/Tzipi Livni level, but at the grassroots. The "Apartheid" wall is a perfect symbol of what needs to come tumbling down.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

.
The "Apartheid" wall is a perfect symbol of what needs to come tumbling down.

This "Apartheid" business in wrong in any number of ways, and I strongly object to it. However, if you actually take that seriously rather than just using it as some sort of rhetorical bludgeon, then how is the outcome of ending "Apartheid" in any Israeli Jew's interest? Rhodesia remade into modern Zimbabwe is exactly what the worst case in Israeli would be. South Africa would be the best case scenario. Both are terrible.

[bkjazfan]

I haven't listened to this diavlog yet but will since I find Gershom to be quite intelligent and likeable but have heard many others dealing with the subject of Israel. I would like to hear about American foreign policy as it relates to it's partners in NAFTA, Canada and Mexico. Perhaps, I am missing something but there appears to be scant attention at BHTV focused on our northern and southern neighbors.

[Parallax]

I have not watched the video yet but the two snippets below the video really caught my eye:

Gershom: The one-state solution is “fantasy land” (04:36)
Gershom: Israelis and Palestinians will sink or swim together (06:08)

In my opinion the two state solution is dead, and even those who still argue for it admit that with each passing day it gets less likely. A single secular nation is inevitable as sooner or later almost all Palestinians will demand citizenship rights instead of a new state.

Originally Posted by Parallax

In my opinion the two state solution is dead

Fine, then Arabs don't get anything. Perhaps paying the Arabs to leave for Jordan would be the best solution.

With respect to the price taggers: hang whoever is involved in criminal activity related to price tagging, because it's terrorism. In the short term, it might increase retaliation against the Arabs, eventually, they'll get the message. I can't get worked up over the torching of a mosque, since it's a useless building to begin with, but some of the price taggers are actually targeting the means by which Arabs make a living, which is unacceptable. Hang them and compensate the Arabs.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by apple

Fine, then Arabs don't get anything. Perhaps paying the Arabs to leave for Jordan would be the best solution.

This would be the correct Israeli attitude. Of course, 40 years of American aid has left the Israelis depressingly susceptable to the whimpering and flailing wrists of the Foggy Bottom clique.

[Ray in Seattle]

Then there was that part that I found beyond absurd. It was disorienting just to watch it - when Bob said he understood the Palestinians' refusal to accept past offers to settle the conflict because, "statehood normally includes control of airspace". I had one of those, "Did he really say that, moments".

Maybe this time the UN will double pinkie-finger swear that they won't let the new sovereign state of Palestine arm itself with thousands of missiles, long range artillery and mortars that could rain down on Tel Aviv and the rest of the coastal strip from less than ten miles away - unlike what happened in Lebanon and Gaza. Right.

And there should be no worry that Hamas would continue to attack Israel - nor that they would start a civil war and become the government of the new Palestine state before the first year of Palestine statehood has passed. Right. What could possibly go wrong?

And to pull back for the wide shot - which I always try to do - something should be said occasionally about the monumental failure of the UN to honor its founding principles, and instead, become an international forum for enabling the destruction of the state that was created as a result of its first significant resolution.

A cop gone bad is morally a far greater criminal and a far greater danger to the people he has sworn to protect than the criminals who simply rob banks for a living. The UN's failure is one huge part of the problem that exists today. IMHO

[Florian]

Originally Posted by Ray in Seattle

And to pull back for the wide shot - which I always try to do - something should be said occasionally about the monumental failure of the UN to honor its founding principles, and instead, become an international forum for enabling the destruction of the state that was created as a result of its first significant resolution.

Ludicrous. It would be more accurate to say that Israel, with the help of the US, has prevented the UN from carrying out its original mandate and honoring its founding principles: the creation of two states in Palestine.

I once quoted to you the thoughts of two prominent Israelis, former Foreign Minister Abba Eban (1905-2002) and the writer Amos Oz. I have no reason to believe that they will make any more impression on you this time than the last time I quoted them, but others may be interested in them:


Eban: "The Palestinian Arabs, were it not for the Balfour Declaration and the League of Nations Mandate, could have counted on eventual independence either as a separate state or in an Arab context acceptable to them....It was impossible for us to avoid struggling for Jewish statehood and equally impossible for them to grant us what we asked. If they had submitted to Zionism with docility, they would have been the first people in history to have voluntarily renounced their majority status."

Oz: "Zionism is a movement of national liberation, which has no need of any 'consent' or 'agreement' from the Arabs. But it must recognize that the conflict between us and the Palestinians is not a cheap Western in which 'goodies' are fighting against 'baddies'. It is more like a Greek tragedy. It represents two conflicting rights. The Palestinian Arabs have a strong and legitimate claim, and the Israelis must recognize this, without this recognition leading us into self-denial or feelings of guilt. We are bound to accept painful compromise, and admit that the land of Israel is the homeland of two nations, and we must accept its partition in one form or another."

[Ray in Seattle]

Originally Posted by Florian

Ludicrous. It would be more accurate to say that Israel, with the help of the US, has prevented the UN from carrying out its original mandate and honoring its founding principles: the creation of two states in Palestine.

I have a hard time understanding that as anything other than a statement that turns reality completely on its head. Perhaps you could flesh that out and explain how it makes logical sense.

BTW - The creation of two states in Palestine was not part of the founding principles of the UN. If it was it would be mentioned in the Charter don't you think? As I understand it, consideration of the establishment of the Jewish Homeland in Palestine was taken up after the Charter was in place - as was required under previous League of Nations resolutions.

And no, I don't find that quote-mining two out-of-context statements from the millions that have been made in the last 63 years by thousands of Israeli diplomats and officials makes a compelling case for anything. But if you'd like to square that circle, be my guest.

[Florian]

Originally Posted by Ray in Seattle

I have a hard time understanding that as anything other than a statement that turns reality completely on its head. Perhaps you could flesh that out and explain how it makes logical sense.

BTW - The creation of two states in Palestine was not part of the founding principles of the UN. If it was it would be mentioned in the Charter don't you think? As I understand it, consideration of the establishment of the Jewish Homeland in Palestine was taken up after the Charter was in place - as was required under previous League of Nations resolutions.

And no, I don't find that quote-mining two out-of-context statements from the millions that have been made in the last 63 years by thousands of Israeli diplomats and officials makes a compelling case for anything. But if you'd like to square that circle, be my guest.

I am not very impressed by your logic or your knowledge of history, and so have no interest in carrying on a discussion with you.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by Florian

Ludicrous. It would be more accurate to say that Israel, with the help of the US, has prevented the UN from carrying out its original mandate and honoring its founding principles: the creation of two states in Palestine.

The Arab League is the one who rejected this outcome; and for the first 30 years of Israeli existence, the United States has little to do with the matter. France is more involved in "preventing the UN from carrying out its original mandate" than we are, if you look at who is stepping on the scales back when there is a relative parity of power.

The "Palestinian state" makes as much sense as a "German Kingdom of Alsace".

[Florian]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

The Arab League is the one who rejected this outcome; and for the first 30 years of Israeli existence, the United States has little to do with the matter. France is more involved in "preventing the UN from carrying out its original mandate" than we are, if you look at who is stepping on the scales back when there is a relative parity of power.

The "Palestinian state" makes as much sense as a "German Kingdom of Alsace".

True, for the first 20 years of Israel's existence. But for the past 30 years the US, not France, has been more involved in preventing the UN from carrying out its mandate,

The Alsacians never wanted to be Germans, but at least they were never stateless.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by Florian

True, for the first 20 years of Israel's existence. But for the past 30 years the US, not France, has been more involved in preventing the UN from carrying out its mandate,

The UN cannot carry out any mandate. The partition arrangement was rejected by the Arab League, with the Palestinians voting with their feet. Palestine is to Israel what the Bosnian Serb Republic was to Bosnia.

The Alsacians never wanted to be Germans, but at least they were never stateless.

Well the Palestinians do not want to be Jordanians and Egyptians anymore. If they were returned to their status in 1966, they wouldn't be "stateless" either, but they wouldn't be Palestinians. They are as real a national identity as Alsatians, or "Sudetenlanders" or Volga Germans.

[Don Zeko]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

The UN cannot carry out any mandate. The partition arrangement was rejected by the Arab League, with the Palestinians voting with their feet. Palestine is to Israel what the Bosnian Serb Republic was to Bosnia.

Seriously? So now refugees fleeing a war zone (which is an incredibly charitable account of the causes of Palestinian population shifts during the 1948 war), are "voting with their feet" against ever wanting to return to their homes?

Originally Posted by Don Zeko

Seriously? So now refugees fleeing a war zone (which is an incredibly charitable account of the causes of Palestinian population shifts during the 1948 war), are "voting with their feet" against ever wanting to return to their homes?

Who started the war? Their fellow Arabs did. I'm sorry, but war has consequences. When no one sheds any tears for the Sudeten-Germans who were expelled from Czechoslovakia, why should I shed tears for people who are at a far lower level of civilization, culture and morality?

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by apple

Who started the war? Their fellow Arabs did. I'm sorry, but war has consequences. When no one sheds any tears for the Sudeten-Germans who were expelled from Czechoslovakia, why should I shed tears for people who are at a far lower level of civilization, culture and morality?

That is exactly the example I was thinking of. No one cries about the Sudeten Germans, or East Prussians, or the Germans of the Tyrol valley, or Volga Germans. Why? Because Germans, like Serbs, like Islamists and Arab nationalists, used the excuse of the past presence of ethnic brethren as pretext for territorial seizure. Czechs and Italians and Poles and Russians threw these people into Germany without second thought, even though many of them didn't even speak German, or know anyone in the country.

And when has the ACLU, or the leftist establishment in the Academy, ever given five minutes of discussion to it?

Why do the Palestinians have any more claim to Israel than the Algerians to al-Andalus?

[opposable_crumbs]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

Why do the Palestinians have any more claim to Israel than the Algerians to al-Andalus?

Why do Jews have anymore claim to Israel?

The problem with European Jews returning to their ancient homeland, was that it was someone's actual homeland.

Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs

Why do Jews have anymore claim to Israel?

The problem with European Jews returning to their ancient homeland, was that it was someone's actual homeland.

Yes, it was. So what are we going to do about it?

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs

Why do Jews have anymore claim to Israel?

The problem with European Jews returning to their ancient homeland, was that it was someone's actual homeland.

They have more claim to it because they actually possess it. The world offered to split the land, the Arabs refused. Why is that not relevant?

[kezboard]

When no one sheds any tears for the Sudeten-Germans who were expelled from Czechoslovakia, why should I shed tears for people who are at a far lower level of civilization, culture and morality?

I've brought up the Sudetenlanders multiple times in threads on this forum relating to Israel, and I think it's an interesting analogy, but not perfect. You misread me as saying that Czechoslovakia was part of Germany prior to WWI, which is obviously not what I'd said, so I didn't bring it up again because I didn't want to get into it.

The reasons the Sudetenlanders aren't much of a political problem for the Czech Republic or Germany these days (although it is there -- it held up the CR's entrance into the EU for a while) are probably two. First, Germany did a good job of integrating the expellees from Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary, etc., and the states that the Palestinian refugees fled to did not. This obviously isn't Israel's fault, but it isn't the Palestinians' fault either. The other reason, which I'm sure you're going to dispute, is that the Sudetenlanders simply were German, while the Palestinians were not Lebanese, Jordanian, etc. I'm not trying to appeal to an essentialist view of nationality here, but rather to say that by 1945, the project started over a hundred years ago to build a German national identity among the German speakers and a Czech national identity among the Czech speakers of Bohemia and Moravia had succeeded absolutely. That isn't to say that there weren't also regional identities that could include members of both language groups, but they weren't politicized at all at that time. There was no common national identification shared by the Arabic-speakers of Palestine and those of Jordan or Lebanon, and the national movement that developed following 1948 was a Palestinian one.

The reason why nobody "sheds tears" for the Sudeten Germans (or any of the other people forcibly moved, death-marched, and ethnically cleansed from eastern Europe after 1945) is because both the USA and the USSR agreed to their expulsion. In fact, the only people in the USA who discuss the Sudetenlanders are the "leftist establishment in the Academy", if by that Sulla means people who study the modern history of Central Europe. Czechs, on the other hand, discuss it all the time.

why should I shed tears for people who are at a far lower level of civilization, culture and morality?

The Sudetenland region had the highest support for the NSDAP of any part of the Reich. I guess you can call that civilization and morality if you like. I don't think this justifies the ethnic cleansing of the Germans from Czechoslovakia, but you actually might, considering your quote in a different thread:

Wow, if you wage wars of aggression on an innocent country three times and get your backward, sandy ass handed to you, you lose land. Who could have imagined that?

Well, the Germans aggressively annexed all of Czechoslovakia, committed all kinds of atrocities against the Czech population (and they were downright merciful in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, compared with what happened in Poland) and ultimately got their backwards, sauerkrauty asses handed to them by the Allies, so maybe you do think the Sudetenlanders deserved to be expelled. If so, maybe you ought to stop complimenting them on their level of civilization.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by Don Zeko

Seriously? So now refugees fleeing a war zone (which is an incredibly charitable account of the causes of Palestinian population shifts during the 1948 war), are "voting with their feet" against ever wanting to return to their homes?

The Arab Higher Committee called on women and children to leave Palestine so as not to get in the way of the forces of liberation; and after them, the Syrian backed Arab Liberation Army actually forced large swaths of Palestinians to abandon their territory in the wake of Israeli advances.

[Don Zeko]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

The Arab Higher Committee called on women and children to leave Palestine so as not to get in the way of the forces of liberation; and after them, the Syrian backed Arab Liberation Army actually forced large swaths of Palestinians to abandon their territory in the wake of Israeli advances.

This is both some serious cherry-picking of historical data and an argument against your earlier point that I took exception too. if the Palestinians were forced out at gunpoint by the Syrians, then that hardly suggests that they freely gave up their residence in what would become Israel.

[Wonderment]

This is both some serious cherry-picking of historical data and an argument against your earlier point that I took exception too. if the Palestinians were forced out at gunpoint by the Syrians, then that hardly suggests that they freely gave up their residence in what would become Israel.

Let's assume they all left willingly (which, of course, they didn't). How does that make any difference? Did they simply gift their property and the rights of their descendants to the Jews?

No one on the planet, except Zionists, believe that Palestinian rights ceased to exist in 1948. That's why they have refugee status under the UN, and why their status also extends to their descendants, whether they reside in camps or not.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

Let's assume they all left willingly (which, of course, they didn't). How does that make any difference? Did they simply gift their property and the rights of their descendants to the Jews?

Is Israel the first nation in the history of the globe to capture territory, and use it? The Arabs of Palestine rejected the UN partition in solidarity with the Arab League. This leaves the matter of Israel's existence up to a contest of arms, which the Israelis won. The Israelis were content with the borders after 1948; it was the Arabs who again caused them to expand with further unprovoked wars.

No one on the planet, except Zionists, believe that Palestinian rights ceased to exist in 1948. That's why they have refugee status under the UN, and why their status also extends to their descendants, whether they reside in camps or not.

Which is an outrage. There is no difference between the fallout in expulsions after WWII and the fate of modern Trans-Jordanians. Where is the UN on the "right of return" of some 250,000 Bosnian Serbs? Why don't you advocate for that, or does the memory of Greater Serbia and Pan-Slavic chauvinism stick in your craw?

[opposable_crumbs]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

Is Israel the first nation in the history of the globe to capture territory, and use it? The Arabs of Palestine rejected the UN partition in solidarity with the Arab League. This leaves the matter of Israel's existence up to a contest of arms, which the Israelis won. The Israelis were content with the borders after 1948; it was the Arabs who again caused them to expand with further unprovoked wars.



Which is an outrage. There is no difference between the fallout in expulsions after WWII and the fate of modern Trans-Jordanians. Where is the UN on the "right of return" of some 250,000 Bosnian Serbs? Why don't you advocate for that, or does the memory of Greater Serbia and Pan-Slavic chauvinism stick in your craw?

No doubt Iraq would be condemned if it made it's Sunni minority refugees for generations and seized their property, and I doubt many would just chalk that off as the realities of conflict.

As for unprovked wars Israel has it's fair share of blame, the Lavon Affair, or Suez, 67 not to mention continued violations of other countries airspace.

Thankfully I don't have to defend ethnic cleansing, be it Arabs from Palestine or Jews from Syria.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs

No doubt Iraq would be condemned if it made it's Sunni minority refugees for generations and seized their property, and I doubt many would just chalk that off as the realities of conflict.

No one seems to care overly much about the ethnic cleansing of Zimbabwe, and the spillover that has had in South Africa. Or the Balkans. Or Tibet. Why this fixation on Muslim grievance?

[opposable_crumbs]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

No one seems to care overly much about the ethnic cleansing of Zimbabwe, and the spillover that has had in South Africa. Or the Balkans. Or Tibet. Why this fixation on Muslim grievance?

Zimababwe was big news certainly in Europe, but small on oil I suppose, though military action was a hot topic for quite some time. The Balkans did lead to intervention, but Dafur which has lots of Muslims has not. Israel is a central issue for lots of converging reasons and 3 billion little green ones, means it will be for some time.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs

Zimababwe was big news certainly in Europe, but small on oil I suppose, though military action was a hot topic for quite some time.

Absolutely nothing came of it. In fact, with all this gibberish the European left babbles about arresting GW Bush or Don Rumsfeld if they visit European countries, Mugabe was allowed to visit Rome without any incident.

The Balkans did lead to intervention,

And intervention led to non-Serb Balkanoid victory; which led to the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Serbs. Where is their right to return to Croatia? Or Bosnia? Or Albania?

but Dafur which has lots of Muslims has not.

No reason it should; the world didn't even care about Darfur when the Christians and Animists were being annihilated. I wouldn't support the use of one American military asset in the place now.

Israel is a central issue for lots of converging reasons and 3 billion little green ones, means it will be for some time.

Which has nothing to do with the Europeans or the UN, only us. So why is the UN so concerned with the matter? Because of the Arab League, and because from 1970 to 1990, the Soviet Union agitated on their behalf as well.

[opposable_crumbs]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

Which has nothing to do with the Europeans or the UN, only us. So why is the UN so concerned with the matter? Because of the Arab League, and because from 1970 to 1990, the Soviet Union agitated on their behalf as well.

Really? Not the fact that Partition was planned and passed at the UN, not the fact that Britain was heavily implicated in administrating this mess, not the fact that the failure of the European powers to safe guard Jews is the reason why so many Europeans now hold two passports and speak Hebrew but have no parents, nothing to do with oil, or religion, or nuclear arms meeting at a very crossroad, and nothing to do with an blind superpower desperate for a road to Damascus moment.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs

Really? Not the fact that Partition was planned and passed at the UN

You again gloss over the fact that the partition was rejected by the Arab League and the nascent political groups that could claim to represent the Trans-Jordanians. If a deal is offered, and rejected by a party, the deal is no longer operative.

not the fact that Britain was heavily implicated in administrating this mess,

And they offered an equitable solution, which the Arabs rejected.

not the fact that the failure of the European powers to safe guard Jews is the reason why so many Europeans now hold two passports and speak Hebrew but have no parents, nothing to do with oil, or religion, or nuclear arms meeting at a very crossroad, and nothing to do with an blind superpower desperate for a road to Damascus moment.

None of which would implicate Britain, obviously, who not only safeguarded its own Jews but sacrificed many of its subjects in chastising the Europeans who did not.

[opposable_crumbs]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

You again gloss over the fact that the partition was rejected by the Arab League and the nascent political groups that could claim to represent the Trans-Jordanians. If a deal is offered, and rejected by a party, the deal is no longer operative.



And they offered an equitable solution, which the Arabs rejected.



None of which would implicate Britain, obviously, who not only safeguarded its own Jews but sacrificed many of its subjects in chastising the Europeans who did not.

I was answering why the UN / Europe cared so much. The role of Britain, in Europe and in Palestine, would naturally make it very interested in events.

[kezboard]

Where is their right to return to Croatia? Or Bosnia? Or Albania?

ZING! Oh, wait. Actually, the UNHCR has done a lot of work in the countries of the former Yugoslavia (which does not include Albania, by the way), and been quite successful. The right of refugees to return to their homes is recognized both by the international community and by the government of Croatia and Bosnia. I'm not sure about Kosovo, I'd have to check it out, but I'd imagine the situation is a bit more complicated considering Kosovo's odd status and the rather bad relations between the Kosovo and the Serbian governments. I do know, though, that returning refugees safely to Kosovo and creating a legal framework where they can live there safely is one of the main things the UNHCR is doing in the Balkans these days.

BTW, it would be Serbian, not pan-Slavic, chauvinism sticking in your craw. Pan-Slavism created Yugoslavia in the first place.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by Don Zeko

This is both some serious cherry-picking of historical data and an argument against your earlier point that I took exception too. if the Palestinians were forced out at gunpoint by the Syrians, then that hardly suggests that they freely gave up their residence in what would become Israel.

Except that there were no Palestinians. These were Arabs living under British rule, being herded by other Arabs. Just like Germans fleeing the Russian advance bringing German civilians along with them, by force if necessary. Doesn't get Prussia back, does it?

[opposable_crumbs]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

Except that there were no Palestinians. These were Arabs living under British rule, being herded by other Arabs. Just like Germans fleeing the Russian advance bringing German civilians along with them, by force if necessary. Doesn't get Prussia back, does it?

There are Jews alive today who have passports with Palestine printed on the front. And there are those who say Israel is not a colonial project.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTduy7Qkvk8

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by Don Zeko

Seriously? So now refugees fleeing a war zone (which is an incredibly charitable account of the causes of Palestinian population shifts during the 1948 war), are "voting with their feet" against ever wanting to return to their homes?

Because it fits the diavlog so well, here is Gershom's recent Slate piece on the issue -- an adaptation of a section of his book discussed here, in fact.

[thouartgob]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

Palestine is to Israel what the Bosnian Serb Republic was to Bosnia.

That reminds me of something that was said years ago during the Kosavo conflict when a guest on the NPR program "The Connection" with Christopher Lydon said that Serbian newscasts played during the run up to the attack featured incidents portrayed as contemporary events but that in fact happened decades ago. By annihilating time between past Bosnian transgressions and current events the Serbs looked to stoke the anachronistic passions for their own gain.

Gershom observation started my thinking on the subject of how time can seem to disappear when dealing with current participants of very old conflicts.

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/397...7:09&out=57:39