Brief notes on the emerging right-wing one-state solution
Years ago I was close to relatives in the religious settler camp. They were generally warm, generous and honest toward members of their families and communities, but unapologetically racist toward Arabs. I remember one woman who walked miles in the summer heat every Sabbath to visit elderly synagogue members in the hospital, but frowned with distaste when she saw Arab women there. One man explained to me matter-of-factly that here in (Greater) Israel, Arabs are guests who may stay only if they behave themselves. Another referred to them off-handedly as stinking Arabs, "aravim masrichim." A third expressed hope that in the next war, we could drive all the Arabs out, because the Arabs are the modern incarnation of Amalek, the enemy of God and the Jews.
When I said that Israel couldn't continue to rule over Palestinians without granting them equal rights, the settlers looked at me like I was from outer space. We finally drifted apart after I expressed enthusiasm for the evacuation of Jewish settlements in the Gaza Strip, because, as one of them frankly explained, "We like to be with people who think like we do."
So if some religious settlers and their right-wing allies are now proposing to grant Israeli citizenship to Palestinians in the West Bank (see Haaretz report here, longer Hebrew version here), it's safe to assume that they're not much motivated by new-found love of Arabs or respect for human rights. Rather, they're forced to admit that world opinion is increasingly impatient with Occupation and its associated horrors, and that Israel can't ignore world opinion forever. They understand that in the era of Operation Cast Lead and the Mavi Marmara, criticism of Israel can't be dismissed as anti-Semitism, and that Israel is in real danger of having even its legitimate concerns disregarded because of its illegitimate actions.
The settlers are by no means solely responsible for the Occupation. Most of Israeli society is complicit. But the settlers, especially the religious ones, are the spearhead. They're the ones who believe that God granted the Land of Israel to the Jews, and that settling the whole of it will speed the coming of His Messiah. How can you argue with someone who knows how to bring the Messiah?
The settlers are also the ones who have the most to lose if Ariel and Ma'aleh Adumim go the way of Gush Katif. They'll lose their homes, jobs, communities and dreams. Thus, many of them would prefer to stay where they are, even at the cost of making substantial concessions to Palestinians. Some would choose to stay put even if they found themselves living within a Palestinian state.
So now the settlers and their political allies are looking for ways to square the circle: that is, to grant Palestinians rights – or at least to gain points and time by talking about doing so – while also preserving the essential Jewishness of the Jewish state. That's why right-wing proposals to annex the West Bank and grant Israeli citizenship to Palestinians living there are invariably and immediately accompanied by one or more of the following qualifications: the Gaza Strip and its residents will not be included in Israel; there will be no Palestinian right of return to Israel; Israeli citizenship will be granted to West Bank Palestinians only gradually, perhaps over the course of a generation; and the grant of citizenship may be contingent on some kind of profession or proof of loyalty to Israel. Lots of wiggle room there.
In politics, one should never underestimate the power of a highly-motivated and well-organized minority to lead an apathetic or directionless majority around by the nose. When settlers and their political allies talk, it's a mistake not to listen. They're filling an ideological vacuum. The much-reduced-in-size Israeli peace camp is dejected, deflected and caught up in internal squabbles. The political center has no plan and no direction. "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity."
What, then, is to be done? How is the awful stalemate to be broken?
I support BDS, but it's not having much of an effect, at least not yet. I take my hat off to the brave folks demonstrating in Sheikh Jarrah and Bil'in, but they don't seem ready to storm the Bastille. I'm overwhelmed with admiration for the many human rights organizations operating in Israel and the Occupied Territories, but by and large they work to alleviate the symptoms of Occupation, not to end it. Meanwhile, Fayyad is a technocrat, Hamas is medieval, Obama's been squished, and Europe is ineffectual. Where is the political movement that will end the Occupation, resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and bring about a workable one-state or two-state solution?
My last two posts, which discussed a possible framework for a one-state solution and its implications for the Palestinian right of return, generated a few hundred comments, along with a thoughtful response from Ahmed Moor that generated another fifty. Responses ranged in tone from thanks and praise to suggestions that I be hit over the head and banned from Mondoweiss. Substantively, the comments touched on many different subjects, from the Peel Commission and the Palestine Electric Company to South Africa and the Bolsheviks.
However, I received not a single response, positive or negative, to my proposal for a Palestinian voting rights campaign in the Occupied Territories. Nor did anyone raise the possibility of using some other kind of moral and political judo, like for example the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state within the '67 borders, followed by a campaign for international recognition, followed by the settlers having a hard time explaining their illegal presence in a foreign country. Nobody put forth a plan.
In this post I'm taking a break from turgid analysis and detailed proposals. Instead I'm throwing the ball back to the community of Mondoweiss writers and commentators.
It's undeniably therapeutic to fulminate against injustice. It may also be useful to apply pressure to a corrupt regime through criticism and other sanctions, even if one doesn't have a plan for changing that regime, or a clear idea of what will replace it. Still, at some point, one must formulate a plan. That's what the settlers are doing.
Dalton's Holocaust Radio Debate on April 24, 2010:
http://www.americanfreedomradio.com/Barrett_10.html
http://www.DebatingTheHolocaust.com
Prof. Butz's Hoax book was on a list of the 10 most controversial
From Prof. Butz:
It is odd that I didn't notice that in 2008 my Hoax book was on a list of the 10 most controversial:
http://listverse.com/2008/06/11/top-10-most-controversial-non-fiction-books/
However it is not on the 2010 version of that list:
http://listverse.com/2010/04/24/10-notoriously-controversial-books/
A.R. Butz
I Will Survive Dancing Auschwitz full version
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7PtrFJtseg&feature=youtube_gdata
Michael Santomauro @ 917-974-6367
Let's End Thought Crimes in the Twenty-first Century. -- to separate historical fact from propaganda…peace is patriotic!
THE ZIONIST CARPETBAGGERS
desertpeace | July 19, 2010 at 00:13 | Categories: Ethnic Cleansing, Hasbara, Illegal Settlements, Israel, Land Theft, Occupation, Palestine, Status of Jerusalem, zionist harassment | URL: http://wp.me/pahWK-3SF
zionist carpetbaggers .....
Ongoing since its May 14, 1948 "Declaration of Independence," Israel systematically reigned terror against Palestinians and neighboring states, always claiming self-defense - bogus then, bogus now, historian Ilan Pappe describing Israel as a "settler Prussian state: a combination of colonialist policies....manifested in the dominance of the army over political, cultural and economic life," then adding:
"You probably have to be born in Israel, as I was, and go through the whole process of socialisation (sic) and education - including serving in the army - to grasp the power of this militarist mentality and its dire consequences. And you need such a background to understand why the whole premise on which the international community's approach to the Middle East is based, is utterly and disastrously wrong," so much so that Israel is slowly self-destructing, preventable only by an entirely new mindset.
Public discourse won't admit it or that Palestinians "lost 80% of their homeland" in a few short months, about 800,000 of them either dispossessed or massacred. Then in 1967, "they lost the remaining 20%," not recovered after 43 years, nor have they received any measure of justice, Cast Lead and Gaza's siege the most extreme recent examples.
State Terror, Israeli Style
meanwhile .....
A few days before his scheduled visit to Washington on 7 July, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu appears as deliberately thwarting American efforts to push forward indirect talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA).
This week, an Israeli government body was set to approve "an unprecedented master plan" for an all-out expansion of Jewish settlements that would effectively -- using the words of one Palestinian official -- "decapitate" East Jerusalem's Arab identity.
The plan would see the building of tens of thousands of Jewish-only apartments in East Jerusalem to be constructed on Arab owned land.
The Jerusalem Municipal Council, controlled by fanatical Jewish radicals advocating ethnic cleansing of non-Jews in the city, is trying to enforce the plan with a discernible green light from the government.
In essence, the plan would leave a zero room for future expansion of Arabs in Jerusalem, as virtually all remaining open space or "green areas" would be used for "Jewish development".
The estimated 270,000 Arab East Jerusalemites are already confined to a mere 13 per cent of East Jerusalem while more than 85 per cent of the city has been seized by Jewish authorities since 1967, when Israel occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank.
According to Palestinian officials, the plan -- if carried out -- constitutes a turning point in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and will surely lead to an early and potentially violent collapse of the shaky and uncertain peace process.
Taken FROM
I Will Survive Dancing Auschwitz
But feast on this, if you haven't seen it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7PtrFJtseg&feature=related
NO TEA PARTY HERE—Black Urges Killing of Whites
Subject: NO TEA PARTY HERE—Black Urges Killing of Whites
NO TEA PARTY HERE
¨I hate white people. All of them.
Every last iota of a cracker, I hate him ...
You want freedom? You gonna have to kill
some crackers. You gonna have to kill
some of their babies.¨
— King Samir Shabazz, leader of the Philadelphia-based New Black Panther Party and target of a Justice Department voter-intimidation charge dropped Attorney General Eric Holder and uncondemned by the NAACP
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIrKtoHYPsE
Grubach's 2nd Response to a Defense of Mark Weber
Subject: Paul Grubach's 2nd Response to a Defense of Mark Weber
The Defender of Mark Weber writes: "Mark Weber has held, I think, three formal public gatherings this year, not counting the IHR open house. I hope that you have done as much, and have been as effective."
Grubach responds. Mark Weber's "three formal public gatherings" and the "open house" attracted about 25 to 40 people per meeting. This is a very poor record, considering that Weber operated on $1,407,442 in public donations taken in from 2004 to 2008! By way of contrast, our online Revisionist journal, Inconvenient History, which operates on a very miniscule budget has had tens of thousand of viewers. Indeed, many months ago, I was told by the editor that my article on the current Demjanjuk trial had around 4000 hits! That is to say, one article from our Inconvenient History website got over four thousand views. The entire number of people who attended Weber's three meetings and open house was around 200. Directly contradicting what this person writes, this shows how ineffective Mark Weber really is.
Mark Weber's laziness and non-productivity is further highlighted by the success of Inconvenient History (IH). All of us at IH work for free and create our essays in our spare time. By way of contrast, Revisionism is supposed to be Mark Weber's full time job for which he is paid around $46,000 per year. Yet, Weber is just too lazy to even create an online journal. As former IHR employee Ken Usher pointed out, instead of working Weber spends his time on the phone with his wife and friends, pontificates on current history, watches U-Tube, and sends out newspaper clippings--all the while he is took in $1,407,442 in donations and wasted it all.
The defender of Mark Weber writes: "He has also created an online publication with approximately the same daily audience (according to Alexa's rating service) as some medium-size establishment media outlets -- not much less than the Tampa Tribune, for example. He's also quoted and interviewed fairly often by non-revisionist media. That's a creditable accomplishment."
Grubach responds. This is downright misleading. In a past mass email, Weber admitted that he has only around 1000 recipients for "Free News and Information Service." And furthermore, his "online publication" consists mostly of newspaper clippings from other web sites. Unlike the Occidental Quarterly, Barnes Review, and Inconvenient History, Weber is simply too lazy to do the work of creating and editing new and original material, so he simply spends his day sending out or posting articles from other web sites. And furthermore, I would be willing to bet that better than half of his 1000 recipients don't even bother to open his mass emails. Over the years, Weber has created very little original material.
In regard to his web site, Weber relies upon newspaper clippings from other web sites and past issues of the now defunct Journal of Historical Review, a large portion of which was created during the years when Carto was in control of the IHR. Weber's job is too create new and original studies and essays (like the Occidental Quarterly, Barnes Review, and Inconvenient History do). Weber does not do this--he simply spends his time posting articles from other web sites.
The reader should ask himself this question: From 2004 to 2008, Weber has taken in $1,407,442 in patriot/Revisionist donations, and in return he posts articles from other web sites and sends out newspaper clippings to around 1000 people. Is the Revisionist/patriot movement getting a good return on their money?
Finally, it is an exaggeration to say that Weber is "quoted and interviewed fairly often by non-revisionist media." Weber is quoted and interviewed every once in a while, mostly by obscure radio shows and news sources. Furthermore, in the recent past, the mainstream non-Revisonist media has quoted him in order to do damage to the Revisionist movement. This further demonstrates what a liability Weber can be. For example, I remember seeing how USA Today quoted him in order to "discredit" the Holocaust revisionist movement.
Weber's Defender writes: "Engaging in personal attacks on others in the field, in order to scrabble over the really minuscule donation pool that truth-tellers have to work with, isn't increasing that pool or spreading the truth to those who ought to hear it."
Grubach Responds. This is simply blatantly false. I am not "scrabbling over a miniscule donation pool." From 2004 to 2008 Mark Weber took in a whopping $1,407,442. Contrary to what this person writes, this is not a "miniscule donation pool." This is a lot of money that Mark Weber's IHR is wasting. I will continue to encourage people to stop sending the pathetic failure of a leader of the IHR, Mark Weber, their money, and send it to more deserving organizations.
Grubach's Closing Statement. The good people of our Movement have had their money wasted by Mark Weber's IHR. It is high time that we discuss whether or not Weber should receive any more Revisionist/patriot money.
Paul Grubach
From: Kevin Alfred Strom <kevin.alfred.strom@revilo-oliver.com>
Cc: weber@ihr.org
Sent: Fri, Jul 16, 2010 4:22 pm
I do thank you for publicizing my original letter, which might
otherwise have reached a smaller audience. I do not think that your
response vitiates the points I've made, at least for anyone who
bothers to check his facts.
Mark Weber has held, I think, three formal public gatherings this
year, not counting the IHR open house. I hope that you have done as
much, and have been as effective.
He has also created an online publication with approximately the
same daily audience (according to Alexa's rating service) as some
medium-size establishment media outlets -- not much less than the
Tampa Tribune, for example. He's also quoted and interviewed fairly
often by non-revisionist media. That's a creditable accomplishment.
I notice that many other online revisionist publications, including
the ones with which you are most closely associated, are not as
successful -- though of course I wish them all well. In fact, I wish
them and you _every possible_ success.
Engaging in personal attacks on others in the field, in order to
scrabble over the really minuscule donation pool that truth-tellers
have to work with, isn't increasing that pool or spreading the truth
to those who ought to hear it.
With every good wish,
Kevin Alfred Strom.
http://kevinalfredstrom.com/
Whoopi Goldberg expressed doubts about moon landing actually occurred.
Whoopi Goldberg: The Moon Landing HoaxVideo Clip
On The View, Whoopi Goldberg expressed her doubts about whether the moon landing actually occurred.
http://freedomeden.blogspot.com/2009/07/whoopi-goldberg-moon-landing-hoax.html
Brief notes on the emerging right-wing one-state s...
Prof. Butz's Hoax book was on a list of the 10 mos...
Whoopi Goldberg expressed doubts about moon landin...