Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- I’m Black and I Want More “Stuff” and “Things”: An Open Letter to Bill O’Reilly
- Worst Case Climate Projections Likely: Study
- Bailout 'Of the People, By the People' Exposes Bankers' Greed
- Already? Obama Tells Supporters to Expect 'Bitter Pills'
- Hugo Chavez to Obama: Stop Invading Countries, Focus on Your Country's Social Woes
- FBI's Abuse of the Surveillance State is the Real Scandal Needing Investigation
- Bailout 'Of the People, By the People' Exposes Bankers' Greed
- I’m Black and I Want More “Stuff” and “Things”: An Open Letter to Bill O’Reilly
- Human Intelligence Peaked Thousands of Years Ago: Study
- Now the Work of Movements Begins
Popular content
Today's Top News
Few Peacemakers in Israel's Knesset
Israelis have had their say at the polls, and now it is up to the world, and particularly the Obama administration, to respond.
Thirty-three parties ran for the Knesset (the Israeli parliament), ranging from the well-known Kadima, Likud and Labor to a variety of lesser known parties that ran on an array of platforms from the rights of the disabled to legalizing cannabis. However, only twelve parties managed to garner enough votes to secure seats in the Knesset.
The incoming Knesset will have a solid right-wing bloc, made up of Likud with twenty-seven seats, Yisrael Beiteinu with fifteen seats, two ultra-Orthodox parties with sixteen seats and two smaller nationalist parties with seven seats. This bloc has four more than the sixty-one-seat threshold needed to form a coalition.
The center bloc was able to muster forty-one seats. This bloc consists of Kadima with twenty-eight seats and Labor with thirteen seats. The remaining fourteen seats were won by liberal, leftist and Arab national parties.
The results clearly testify to the fact that a large majority of the elected politicians are against an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement based on the two-state solution. Moreover, some parties have blatant neo-fascist tendencies. Yisrael Beiteinu, for example, ran under the banner of "no citizenship without loyalty," and would like to strip any person who is critical of Israeli policies towards the Palestinians of their citizenship. People like me.
While the devastating effects of these elections on internal Israeli politics may not concern the international community, their repercussions for Israel's relations with its neighbors--not least the Palestinians--should certainly concern world leaders and specifically President Barack Obama, who has already declared that Middle East stability and peace are vital to US interests.
Obama's political vision has engendered hope not only in the United States, but around the world. My expectation is that he will make good on his promise for change and introduce a courageous initiative that will finally bring peace to Israelis and Palestinians. He has both an opportunity and a responsibility to do so.
The opportunity has arisen as a result of over eighteen years of political negotiations on the two-state solution (from the Madrid Conference in 1991, through Oslo, Camp David, Taba, and Annapolis) as well as the publication of promising initiatives (from the Geneva Initiative and the Arab Peace Initiative to the Nusseibeh and Ayalon Plan), which have clarified exactly what needs to be done in order to reach a peace settlement between the warring sides.
The two-state solution entails three central components:
1. Israel's full withdrawal to the 1967 border with possible one per one land swaps so that ultimately the total amount of land that was occupied will be returned.
2. Jerusalem's division according to the 1967 borders with certain land swaps to guarantee that each side has control over its own religious sites and large neighborhoods. These two components entail the dismantling of Israeli settlements and the return of the Jewish settlers to Israel.
3. The acknowledgment of the right of return of all Palestinians but with the following stipulation: While all Palestinians who so desire will be able to return to the fledgling Palestinian state, only a limited number agreed upon by the two sides will be allowed to return to Israel; those who cannot exercise this right or, alternatively, choose not to, will receive full compensation.
Obama's responsibility arises from the fact that the only way to advance US regional interests and to provide real security for the two peoples is by having Israelis and Palestinians sign a comprehensive agreement of this kind. Taking into account the results of the current Israeli elections, Obama will have to neutralize the rejectionists in order to resolve this bloody conflict once and for all.
With determination and political boldness he can do just that. His administration will need to adopt the following strategy: First, the White House needs to draft a proposal using the above-mentioned guidelines. Second, the draft proposal should be submitted to the two sides so that each one can suggest minor alterations. Third, the Obama administration will have to hammer out a final proposal. Finally, this proposal should be publicized, with the US and international community applying pressure by declaring that the two parties will be rewarded if they support the initiative and penalized (economically and politically) if they do not.
The task might seem greater than it actually is, since ironically the majority of Jews (despite the elections) and Palestinians in the region support the two-state solution. The deadlock has occurred because the Israeli political configuration has allowed a sizable minority of settlers and their sympathizers to block all past governments from making the necessary compromises. This deadlock, however, can be overcome if the international community, and particularly the US, assumes a more interventionist role. And while intervention may be conceived by some as anti-Israeli, particularly if such intervention includes sanctions, it is the only way to secure Israel's existence in the long run. Obama should not therefore hesitate to compel the incoming government to adopt the two-state solution. This would be the genuine pro-Israeli stance.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
25 Comments so far
Show AllI believe that this Isreali Majority's idea of a two-state soluton is something resembling US Indian Reservations - they are technically sovereign states too.
The Palestinians also support a two-state solution, but they have something more like an honest state in mind.
---USAn---
More information, please. Why is it that the elections went to the right-wing, if that's not what most Israelis want? And why are Israelis so aggressive, so racist, so enamored of injustice--do they live in a bubble where they think the anger they're generating in the whole world doesn't matter?
At the end you say that Obama needs to enforce a two-state solution, even though the Israelis just voted for the Right, and that the way to do this is through political or economic sanctions. But it seems to me he has a simpler solution--IF he actually has the power to go against the Zionists and Likudniks, which has looked pretty questionable in recent years (that is, it appears that the Zionists have some kind of secret veto power over US policies). The simpler solution is that Obama could just stop funding the Israeli military. It's kind of like a big muscley man with an obnoxious, punk little brother who constantly picks fights and waits for big brother to step in to protect him from the pounding he'd otherwise get. At some point big brother must recognize that the kid is a vicious psychopath, and stepping aside to let him finally get a normal accountability lesson is the proper action to take. Only, by now, there is a real risk that the little punk's enemies will kill him in retaliation for the latest brutal assaults. It's this prospect that makes me wonder whether Israelis live in a bubble--don't they realize how totally they depend on the US for the military superiority that has allowed them to dominate the much larger and increasingly hostile population surrounding them...and don't they realize that public opinion in the US is turning against them, that they can watch the IDF kill hundreds of Palestinian children and justify it, but the rest of the world--including Americans--will not react that way?
Good point!
The power of the purse cuts through the Gordian knot of fitful and ineffectual negotiation. Where there's a will, there's a way!
But there IS no will in the fledgling maladministration. Quite the opposite. Obama pointedly surrounded himself with pro-Zionist Clintonista warhawks and Rahm Emanuel.
If Israel launched a tactical nuke into Gaza, Obama's first comment would be something like, "Until the Palestinian people totally desist in allowing the wind to blow the ashes of their dead and other radioactive fallout into Israel, the United States supports the right of Israel to defend itself against any and all threats to its security."
· Yr Obd't Servant
We give Israel more than $15 million per DAY, to continue their flagrant human rights abuses against the Palestinians, while families in the U.S. are losing their homes and jobs .
"Recently Americans have begun to read and hear that “Israel receives $3 billion in annual U.S. foreign aid.” That's true. But it's still a lie. The problem is that in fiscal 1997 alone, Israel received from a variety of other U.S. federal budgets at least $525.8 million above and beyond its $3 billion from the foreign aid budget, and yet another $2 billion in federal loan guarantees. So the complete total of U.S. grants and loan guarantees to Israel for fiscal 1997 was $5,525,800,000." http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/cost_of_israel.html
$5,525,800,000/365 days= $15,139,178/day, i.e. $15 million/day in 1997. I think it's unlikely that the total aid to Israel is less today.
If anyone has better figures, please share them, and your sources!
"Why is it that the elections went to the right-wing, if that's not what most Israelis want?"
Because Israel's dysfunctional proportional representation voting system favours extremist parties.
"[Do] they live in a bubble where they think the anger they're generating in the whole world doesn't matter?"
Some of them really believe they are chosen and in a special relationship with God that excuses anything they do. These are the people who benefit from Israel's voting system (see my first comment above).
"Obama needs to enforce a two-state solution, even though the Israelis just voted for the Right"
This is a problem - why should any sanction that President Obama might apply to Israel bring them to heel, rather than make them even more intransigent?
"there is a real risk that the little punk's enemies will kill him in retaliation for the latest brutal assaults"
They can't do that, because Israel has nuclear weapons, so the cost of attempting to do so is prohibitive. Besides, most of Israel's enemies will settle for an Israel that retreats to its pre-1967 borders and stays there.
Proportional representation is not the problem. If Israel had a plurality system like the U.S., the right-wing religious parties would have been likely to unite behind behind Likud, and Likud would have won. I guess one could call Likud more "moderate" than a coalition than a coalition of Likud and the other parties, but that's like saying Bush would be more moderate than Cheney.
Dream on, Professor Gordon. Obama has bigger fish to fry. Mitchell will spend the next four (or eight) years in shuttle diplomacy while more and more settlers will move into the West Bank. And, of course, we will enjoy regular fireworks displays as the IDF conducts more bombing in Gaza. If all works out to US-Israeli satisfaction, Greater Israel will be completely cleansed of Muslims by the next US presidential election.
I wish the parties that represent the 'rights of the disabled' and the 'legalization of cannabis' would have gained a majority. Along with the Green party there.
Excuse me fellow posters but I still have not received a reply from the mossad trolls who seem to reply to everything else.
Dear zionist agent ------ Why is it that the Stern Gang and Irgun did not protect the European Jews from being exterminated?
As far as the above article yes to harsh sanctions against israel, it is the only way they will relinquish their greater israel aggression.
Why do you expect any sort of honest reply from a troll? If you do corner a troll, they invariably slither off and start being trollish about another topic and never admit that they'd read any sort of post from you...
What's that old saw about arguing on the internet being like competing in the special olympics...
Saturnalia ----- You are so right but I was trying to learn if they had a historical claim or spin. Some things are impossible to spin. Keep up the good work.
glenn ford. In 1942 the Irgun/Stern Gang, known then as Lehi, Y. Shamir a member, tried to "strike a deal" with Adoph Hitler.
If these Zionists were trying to make deals with Adolph Hitler.......Europe's Jews must have been 'contexted.'
azjoe.
If they were to answer your question then they would have to admit that Zionism is based on false spirituality, deceit and violence. They can't do that, you know.
Help reduce the National Debt - TAX CHURCHES!
How about the worst member of the Israeli government: Avigdor Lieberman.
He was a member of the violent Anti-Arab group Kach that so brazenly murdered Palestinian civilians that they were listed as a terrorist organization by the US State Department.
Not to be bombastic about it, but if the murder of Palestinians can make the US State Dep't call an Israeli organization "terrorist" they must be pretty bad. Normally, the murder of Palestinians does not get much of a reaction.
It says a lot about the political culture in Israel that someone like Avigdor Lieberman can rise to power. And of course the the political culture in the United States that we support people like him- rather than telling our Israeli friends that their policies are self-defeating.
Neve Gordon is a moral and courageous man, but I have tremendous problems with him claiming that a majority of Israelis favor a two-state solution. More should be said. This borders on disingenuous.
It is abundantly clear with the votes of so many Israelis going to fascist, anti-peace parties (as it was with their overwhelming election of war criminal Sharon) and their near 90% support for the slaughter in Gaza, that the Israeli populace's concepts of "peace" and "two-state solution" are wildly different from what most people would assume.
Aloha opeluboy!
How's the fish! (or are you the bait?)
Because I agree with your assessment of Neve Gordon, I will resist your choice of the word "disingenuous," even with your qualifier. But I agree. I do not understand the dynamics within Israeli society which have allowed the Israeli people to be driven into such a reactive, and reactionary, politics.
The timing of the invasion of Gaza, as others have said, appears to have been scheduled to serve two purposes: First, to impose a reality on Obama limiting his options and, second, to drive the Israeli electorate to the right prior to the election, resulting in the most rightwing Israeli government possible, resistant to any attempt by Obama to press for a "reasonable" version of the "two-state solution."
After years of pretending to support a "two state solution" (of the "bantustan" variety), it is likely Israel's new government will now drop that pretense. Which may be a blessing, as it would make it easier to de-legitimize their intransigence within the American public.
The Israel-Palestine conflict should be a top priority for all US progressives, including, most pointedly, American Jewish progressives. We cannot rely upon Obama to follow a fair policy, but we can build enough public pressure against a continuation of our unquestioning support for Israel's policies along the lines of the anti-apartheid movement of the 80s.
The linchpin in American "support for Israel" is, frankly, American liberal Jews. Without Democratic support, Israel would not be getting the billions she is receiving and the USG would be pressuring her to comply with international law rather than protecting her with our veto power and ability to bully nations critical of Israel to toe the line.
The key to Democratic support for Israel's policy is the internal politics within the American Jewish community, particularly the hegemonic position of AIPAC and related groups. Each temple has attached to it a PR campaign designed to win American popular support for Israel as well as to brainwash Jewish kids into thinking Zionism is an inherent component of being a "good Jew." So every temple should become a site of political struggle over Israel's policies. The repressive climate which suppresses free debate within the Jewish community must be challenged and shattered.
An Obama administration would have a much wider freedom of movement if there were more visible dissension within the Jewish community over US policy. I agree with Neve Gordon that a just solution is in Israel's interests and think it is not impossible Obama could justify such a policy as "pro-Israel" if he were to get more support from the Jewish community.
The Zionists are Nazis. They've been engaged in a 60-year effort to torture, murder and displace the darker-skinned inhabitants of Palestine...that is, when they're not busy stabbing America in the back. Their mind-set has not changed from that of the Irgun, when they cut open the bellies of Palestinian pregnant women in Daar Yessin, murdering their way through the village dragging helpless civilians through the streets. They'd do the same to us if they could. Whoever they elect will be a criminal and an enemy of the United States.
Doesn't Matter Who Wins The Israeli Election
"What matters?"
"Our prevailing upon the Obama administration to end its unqualified support of the settler-state."
"If we fail in this?"
"The Mideast conflict intensifies."
"While here at home?"
"Blowback."
"But if we succeed in getting the Obama administration to cease and desist in its support of Israel?"
"Israel will be forced to accept a cease-fire with Hamas and to sit down with Palestian leaders for the purpose of figuring things out."
"Based on?"
"One equals one."
"Anything else?'
"Liberty and justice for all."
"And the effect that such a settlement will have on us here at home?"
"The threat of s terrorist attack will erode."
"The reason being?"
"Israel's savagery of Palestinians and Lebanese stokes the fear and hatred that underlies the messianic violence movements in the Mideast and elsewhere."
"Fires put out, threat evaporates?"
"Exactly."
Mid East Analyst, Omar Barghouti wrote:
According to the almost official results of the Israeli elections, reproduced below, the fanatic-to-fascist right was the biggest winner in Israel. A proper death certificate for the Israeli Zionist "left" should finally be issued -- 61 years late!
Here is a breakdown of the results for all Israeli parties, categorized into groups according to their respective positions towards international law and basic human rights. Only these universal criteria should be used in Israel and anywhere else to decide who is right, who is left and who is ultra right, etc. The common Israeli designations of "left," "right" and "center" to describe Labor, Likud and Kadima, respectively, are completely inaccurate and intentionally misleading, as they steer away from any objective criteria in distinguishing left from right. Still, unfortunately, these meaningless Israeli labels are parroted, verbatim, by commentators, even progressive ones, without any reflection on their accuracy or relevance.
By any objective standard, the election results must reveal the following accurate categories:
Ultra Right: (parties that openly adopt racist or fascist platforms calling for forcible displacement, or ethnic cleansing, of the indigenous Palestinian citizens of Israel, based on diverse conditions that depend on the specific party in question; justify and/or commit war crimes and grave violations of international law; reject UN resolutions and international law as THE basis for a just peace; reject all three basic Palestinian rights enshrined in international law: (1) FULLY ending the occupation and withdrawing to the 1967 borders, as per UNSC Res. 242, including withdrawal from occupied east Jerusalem; (2) the UN-sanctioned rights of the refugees to reparations and return to their homes of origin; and (3) the right to full equality inside Israel and ending institutional racism against all "non-Jewish" citizens of the state):
Yisrael Beitenu: 15 Knesset seats
National Union: 4
Shas: 11
Jewish Home: 3
Likud: 27
Kadima: 28
TOTAL: Ultra right: 88 seats: 73% of the total seats in the Knesset or 80% of Jewish seats in the Knesset
Right: parties that conform to the Ultra-Right principles above with the exception of calling openly for ethnic cleansing as a political platform. There are exceptions, of course, whereby several key Labor leaders have occasionally called for ethnic cleansing, but it was not translated into part of their program or a consistent policy, unlike the parties of the Ultra-Right above
Labor: 13
United Torah Judaism: 5
Meretz: 3
TOTAL Right: 21 seats: 16% of total or 19% of Jewish seats
Center: parties that support a FULL withdrawal from the 1967-occupied territory, but oppose equality for all the citizens of the state and the right of return. It may be generous to call them center, but ...)
NONE
Left: parties that support a FULL withdrawal from the 1967-occupied territory, equality for all the citizens of the state, and the right of return. These parties are committed to a two-state peaceful solution based on international law and universal human rights principles)
United Arab List: 4 (an entirely Palestinian party -- politically on the left, but socially on the right)
Hadash (communists): 4 (note that less than 1% of Israeli-Jews voted for it, so it can statistically be regarded as a Palestinian party)
Balad (national democrats): 3 (entirely Palestinian)
TOTAL Left: 11 seats: 9% of total
It is very important to note that, from initial news reports, it seems that half the Palestinian public in Israel BOYCOTTED the elections, the widest such boycott in history. This means that all the above Palestinian parties represent less than half of the Palestinian voters in Israel!
Main conclusions:
(1) The Israeli Jewish public has voted predominantly for the ultra right (including a huge increase in support for the fascist right)
(2) The Israeli Jewish (Zionist) left does not exist (as predicted) as a political force in Israel
(3) The ONLY left parties in Israel are entirely Palestinian
(4) There is a Jewish consensus in Israel (with the exception of a few brave, principled individuals and tiny anti-Zionist groups) AGAINST all the basic requirements for a just peace as laid out in UN resolutions and supported by most world governments
(5) For the first time in the history of Knesset elections, it is reported that Palestinian voters have shunned Zionist parties to an unprecedented level, opting for Palestinian parties instead.
What's to be done?
A paradigm shift from the defunct, immoral, and now impossible, two-state solution to the democratic, single state solution is NOW called for more than ever. Only by rejecting all forms of racism, apartheid, ethnocentrism, religious fundamentalism and colonialism, and by embracing FULL equality and democracy, including the right of return of the refugees, can we create a just and sustainable peace.
The call for a two-state solution has truly become a smokescreen to cover up and legitimize continued occupation, colonization and Zionist apartheid.-Omar
If YOU Are US PLEASE Learn More:
http://www.wearewideawake.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1182&Itemid=215
Eileen Fleming, Author, Founder WAWA:
http://www.wearewideawake.org/
Producer "30 Minutes With Vanunu" and "13 Minutes with Vanunu"
Thanks for the comprehensive and informative report, Eileen, dismal though its content be!
It remains a difficult question, but I am beginning to see that the two-state option has a lesser-evil quality. Its popularity is boosted by a self-confirming pragmatism predicated on the conviction that the two-state option is the likeliest, the most "do-able" outcome.
There's a moderate meme afloat that dispite the unending mutual hostility and rancor between the parties, both sides are within reaching distance of OK with it. And, IMO, this is reinforced by a superficial but strong gut feeling that the only way to control or manage the permanent pathological friction between Israeli and Palestinian is to keep them as far apart from each other as possible. That is, the chances of achieving peaceful coexistence in a united state are rejected out of hand.
Separate and Unequal is not a viable option for the out-group. And a curious-- some might say toxic-- side-effect of a two-state solution is to finally reify Israel's theocratic dimension. A state by, for, and of members of a particular religion is a theocracy. (Unless the religion is athiestic, which is a can of worms I wouldn't dream of opening.)
So the whole plot line about Israel being such a vital and esteemed ally of the US because it's the only vibrant democracy in the Middle East, and shares Amerika's Judeo-Christian culture and values, goes right down the crapper.
Yet a one-state solution would require Israel to explicitly renounce the condition that theirs is a Jewish state which appropriately and righteously places Jews above all others. The Israeli government would have to accept true equality and parity with Palestinians, and no funny business, schemes, tricks, ups, or extras from either side. And concede that demographics mitigate against the exclusive standard to which they've so fiercely clung.
Somehow, someone must make them an offer they can't refuse.
· Yr Obd't Servant
Mr. Gordon, sorry to say this, but while you may be well-meaning you are also delusional because you ignore history -- the two state solution is not dead, it was stillborn because Israel, from it's "birth" in the firm control of the political Zionists, never, not even and especially during and after Oslo, held out the two state solution as anything but a stalling tactic to acquire by whatever means all of Eretz Israel, as shown repeatedly by Israel's actions, regardless of which political party is in control, and by the stated positions of the current most popular parties, Kadima, Likud, Yisrael Beiteinu, and Labor, all of whom in one form or another refuse to recognize the right of existence of a (genuine) Palestinian state and refuse to renounce terrorism in their pursuit of what they see as their "right" to all of "Israel", i.e. Palestine.
HJ,
If we are to be ruthlessly "non-delusional" in our analysis, I think we have to also agree the conditions for a "secular, democratic, bi-national one-state solution" are at least as remote as a semi-fair two state solution.
For years I upheld the s,d,bi one state solution, but have come to see it as an unrealistic dream, at least in the medium term. I see a two-state solution as providing the opportunity for trustbuilding measures from both sides, which could (if followed) create the pre-conditions necessary for a transition to the "secular, democratic, bi-national one-state" promised land of my youth.
Demanding the one-state solution now, is not possible. Will it be possible in the future? only if trust is developed and fears abandoned.
Shalom
I, too, had always seen the "S-D-Bi" one-state solution as the only just, fair, and reasonable solution. Unfortunately, that opportunity passed when the West, in their effort to keep large numbers of displaced jews from emigrating to their countries in the post-WW2 reorganization, and eager to maintain imperialist control over the middle Eastern oil supplies, went along with Great Britain's addiction to drawing abritrary lines in the sand. Palestine was doomed.
Sadly, unless an American president arises who is honest and just - and can therefore see the situation clearly and without bias (something Obama is apparently unable or unwilling to do) - a two-state solution is also doomed. The Zionists in Israel will never allow that to happen. America would have to withhold all aid (esp. military) from Israel; would have to position American peace-keeping troops in Gaza and the West Bank, and let Israel know that ANY incursion outside their internationally-recognized (AKA 1967) borders would be repelled with force; demand the dismantling of all settlements in the West Bank.
I often wonder WHY less than 2% of Americans hold such sway over our political leaders, and all I can figure is that Israel's messianic fervor, topped with nuclear stockpiles, sprinkled with some explicit threats (as in: "or we'll just let loose!"), is enough to keep our Presidents in line.
I also wonder why so many Americans are willing to excuse Israel's crimes due to the holocaust excuse, but fail to extend the same compensatory allowance to other Nazi victims (specifically, gays).
"no gods, no masters" --m. sanger
No peace comming from Israel? Wow that was a surpirse. More and more people are looking a the whole Gaza things as pure set up BS. 500 to 700 rockets ( very few pictures but a few pot holes) and 3 dead. This stinks of total media control as the last thing Israel or the ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE want is peace. Yes a few want peace but when no person running is pro peace then you won't find peace. Bring in the war crimes courts and convict a few to death for their deeds.
The Israeli government policy took on an upsurge in propoganda within the State itself in recent times too. That's what you see reflected in the results. No matter how bad it is for some of their own Jews there it has inculcated an arrogance through racist dogma that says 'At leasst I'm not an Arab, thanks be!'
And another thing that has to be considered ids that so many are benefiting so much from the theft of Palestine. These are to two main contributory factors to the results.
As far as the bi-national State goes it would be the only truely peaceful solution to the problem that exists from colonial mentality and practice. But it is also the most difficult to envisage. Everything suggests the international consensus of a two state solution will be pursued and that is well nigh impossible to achieve. Palestinians stand to get really screwed in any deal promoted under the auspices of Uncle Sam who has consistently been even more extreme in its bias than the Israeli's themselves. As if trying to gain good kudos for their masters? And without Justice and a compromised leadership chosen by others to represent them The Palestinian people will be lose everything in a short time. They will lose their legal rights under International Law as they will be divided and imprisoned in Bantustans and dispearsed bribed robbed forced and humiliated with nothing resembling a contiguous independent state. I suspect the latter scenario to become promoted politically, if we ever get that far?
The Palestinians are in peril. They are divided and Gaza is traumatised and shell shocked. They are imprisoned by barbarous, racist, arrogant, facists. The West Bank is like Swiss cheese and they are humiliated, repressed and subdued by corrupted collaborators who are only interested in their own power. If ever a people deserved help and assistance to become recognised citizens in their own Soverign State and on their own lands it is these betrayed people. And if ever an enemy was so dangerous to us all it is those who pursue the Zionist programme. Finally without Justice there will be no lasting Peace whatever policy is pursued. This creeping genocide must be seen for what it is and the pathetic body politics which is 'leading the world' is an Empire abroad that has continually supported colonial expansion by its favourite. Ironic or not? There will inevitably be all hell to pay for these crimes in the end. Inshallah!