LIVE STREAM at 2:00 pm TODAY: Palestinian PM Salam Fayyad at New America

-

DSC_0421.JPG
The violent clashes currently underway in East Jerusalem, sparked by the shooting of a Palestinian man by a private guard protecting Israeli settlers, have once again demonstrated the volatility and hair-trigger tensions in Jerusalem and in the region that can explode at the slightest provocation. Yet even as riot police are dispersing Palestinians in the Old City, direct talks between Palestinians and Israelis continue, President Obama yesterday at the United Nations called for greater international efforts to create a true Palestinian state, and a poll of Palestinians in the Occupied West Bank and Gaza found that nearly 60% of respondents oppose attacks against Israel, and 54% believed the new round of talks would be beneficial to them (even though nearly 56% said they did not believe the talks would change the status quo).
The New America Foundation American Strategy Program/Middle East Task Force will host Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad from 2:00 pm – 4:00 pm TODAY for a discussion of the state of relations between Israelis and Palestinians, and the difficulties of building a state, its institutions, and its economy while coping with the heavy burdens of occupation and settlements. Registration for this event is CLOSED, but it will stream live right here at TWN.
– Andrew Lebovich

Comments

85 comments on “LIVE STREAM at 2:00 pm TODAY: Palestinian PM Salam Fayyad at New America

  1. JohnH says:

    “Democracies are more reluctant to order up mass-casualty wars than dictatorships.” So which of the two does that make the United States and Israel?

    Reply

  2. nadine says:

    “Obviously, dictatorship and totalitarianism is not the single
    source of trouble; nationalism and tribalism can be extremely
    dangerous, both in Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and certain
    parts of Europe. To boil this down to a partisan theory
    represents a reductionist explanation of what you call “trouble”.” (Paul Norheim)
    You’re aiming this argument in the wrong direction, Paul. It is not I who am arguing that nationalism is the main danger while dictatorship is quite tolerable; that is is the de facto position of the European elites. I agree with you that both dictatorship and nationalism can be dangerous, but whether they are or not depends on the characteristics of the individual regime.
    Democracy, however, functions as a protection (though not a perfect one), since a democracy must learn the art of compromise to survive, and democracies are more reluctant to order up mass-casualty wars than dictatorships.

    Reply

  3. nadine says:

    This lofty dismissal of national immaturity rather begs the point of what national maturity is supposed to look like. (It also ignores that many of those young “immature” natures are not being paranoid, they are facing real threats.) All I gather is that “tolerance” is supposed to be an American value.
    Actually, I don’t think “tolerance” is an American value. Only left-wing Americans elevate “tolerance” to their prime value (often it sounds like their only value). Right-wing Americans talk about “values” instead. I think you have “tolerance” confused with “liberty”. “Liberty” is an American virtue, and America tolerates a lot in the interest of not preserving everybody’s personal liberty unless there is a pressing reason not to do so. The Bill of Rights is big on what are called “negative rights” — rights that should not be interfered with, i.e. that neighbors and government must tolerate.
    The problem with tolerance as your main value is that if you tolerate intolerance, then your tolerance turns into submission sooner rather than later. If you want to preserve your own liberty, you can’t tolerate intolerance.
    Much of the Euro elite is currently in the business of tolerating intolerance, in the form of the unspoken injunction never to irritate the Muslims. They criticize as “intolerant” those who criticize Muslims more than they criticize those Muslims who advocate killing cartoonists or even try to.
    You can see the effect every time Geert Wilders ignites a shitstorm by making some frank comments about Euro elite behavior, like last year when he talked about the Joanie de Rijke case (she was the left-wing Dutch journalist who sought out the Taliban and kept insisting they “respected” her even after they kidnapped her and raped her repeatedly). Wilders dubbed this “pre-captivity Stockholm syndrome” and said not only Rijke but the whole Dutch elite suffered from it.

    Reply

  4. Paul Norheim says:

    “The main fracture after WWII is that the Leftist elites of Europe
    decided identity and nationalism were the causes of the
    trouble, and tried to wipe them out; while America decided that
    authoritarian dictatorship was the cause the trouble.” (Nadine)
    Well, if that is the main fracture, both the “Leftist elites” and
    “the Americans” – whomever that may imply (the US
    conservatives?) – are wrong.
    Why either-or? Why totalitarianism OR nationalism/tribe? There
    is no single factor explaining the “trouble”, and those who
    claim so have hidden agendas.
    In Cambodia under Pol Pot a peculiar version of totalitarian
    agrarian “communism” was to blame. Not so in Rwanda or
    Burundi from the 1950′s until 1994, where tribal hostility was
    combined with economical issues and lack of resources and
    land, resulting in regular massacres culminating with the
    genocide in 1994.
    And before and after WWII: Stalin: communism and
    industrialization, combined with paranoid control and
    dictatorial worship of the “Little Father” that has its origins in
    the old Russian Tsar regimes. Similar development in China
    under Mao.
    Germany 1933-45: Cultus of Der F

    Reply

  5. Paul Norheim says:

    On a general level, Nadine, beyond my personal
    inclinations, I believe that tribal and ethnic consciousness
    and identity actually is a good thing, for two reasons:
    We all need something familiar, something we may call
    “home”. Secondly, nationalism, as well as all kinds of
    identities (gender, religion etc) is historically connected to
    political self determination and basic human rights.
    But this identification has its limits: we happen to be
    connected to a world larger than our tribes, our gender,
    our sexual identities, and other identities, and have to find
    ways to live together. Many people have all kinds of
    multiple identities, and there are values that transcend
    those particular identities.
    Obviously, there are values that transcend being a
    Norwegian, a Jew, a homosexual, a woman, a member of
    Hells Angles, a Muslim.
    Countries like Norway, Kenya, Uganda, Israel, and
    Lithuania – to randomly pick a handful – are young and
    relatively immature nations; some containing multiple
    tribes, some more homogenous. In my view, older nations
    like the United States and France are more mature, more
    advanced, and so is also the concept of the European
    Union, despite all the difficulties.
    And despite all its faults, the United States have succeeded
    in sculpting a model that from the outset intended to
    avoid the religious wars and persecutions that almost
    destroyed Europe. Tolerance is not a nasty leftist concept,
    Nadine. Tolerance is an American value.
    We (the Norwegians, the Ugandans, the Israelis etc). got
    our self determination, which is probably a necessary step.
    But unfortunately there is a certain, perhaps inevitable
    phase of chauvinistic immaturity in the history of all young
    nations – born of pride and insecurity – and this stage in a
    nation’s life isn’t pleasant to watch from the outside. I
    have no doubt that Palestine, if it becomes a reality, will
    go through a similar unpleasant stage as well. Eritrea, on
    the African Horn, is a recent example among many others.
    Multi-cultural environments are not invented by nasty
    leftists with lofty ideas. In many places in the world, like
    for example Uganda, USA, Lebanon and England, multi-
    cultural environments is a fact of life – a result of all kinds
    of historical processes. Total relativism is a recipe for
    disaster in these circumstances, but so is an insistence on
    the values of the strongest tribes, fear mongering, and
    demonization of minorities.
    France and the United States have for a long time been
    among the advanced countries in this regard. Don’t look to
    Norway, to Oslo; don’t look to Israel or Kenya. Look to
    older, larger, more mature and civilized nations.
    Look to France, to difficulties and challenges in and
    around Paris. Look to the United States, to developments
    in cities like New York, or in London, or Toronto, to see if
    the world will find a way beyond secular or religious
    fundamentalism on one hand, and total relativism on the
    other – in our approach to the challenges of multi-cultural
    societies.

    Reply

  6. Paul Norheim says:

    “BTW you still haven’t answered if you mind if your grandkids
    live in an Arabic-speaking Oslo.”
    Why is my personal opinion so interesting? I am not
    representative.
    When I was a kid, I lived for nine years in Ethiopia. During the
    first period, until I was six, I spoke English with my American
    friends from the neighboring house, Joan and Stevie Brown, as
    well as with the Indian kids Sylvia and Tambo Suganandam; and
    Norwegian at home. The national language in the country was
    Amharic, a south-semitic language. One day – I must have
    been five or six years old – three German girls, the adopted
    children of a strict, fat German woman, Miss Rebin, sat in a tree
    having a conversation in German. I was standing under the
    three together with some Ethiopian friends. On his way from
    work, my father observed me translating what the kids said in
    German to Amharic for my Ethiopian friends.
    I don’t remember the episode, and I can’t even remember that I
    understood some German. When we went back to my lovely
    ethnic tribe in Northern Norway, I forgot two or three
    languages, and I regret that very much. Two months later I only
    spoke Norwegian, and later in life, I had to relearn some
    English, Amharic, and German the hard way.
    Not very long ago, I considered a trip to Saana, the capital of
    Yemen, to try to learn some Arabic. Then this Al Qaeda stuff
    came up, and I guess I’ll have to wait a while. Perhaps it’s too
    late in life to learn a new language, but I would guess that my
    knowledge of Amharic could help me a bit in understanding
    some Arabic words and grammar.
    I think it’s too cold and dark here in Norway during the winter,
    and I enjoy bi- or multi-linguistic environments. Not that I
    mind speaking, reading, and writing Norwegian. I

    Reply

  7. nadine says:

    Yes, Paul, I know what Vichy France did. I know what Occupied France did too, even more enthusiastically. However, I don’t see the relevance to our present discussion. Is that the choice, either have no ethnicity yourself, or send your Jews to Auschwitz? Talk about a false dichotomy.
    “The idea of French “ethnicity” is not
    one which informs mainstream discourse in France.”
    If you replace the word “mainstream” with “PC” I would agree. However, I would suggest to you that the topic is not so much irrelevant as it is suppressed. It does inform fringe parties (sometimes not so fringe) like Le Pen.
    The idea of France did very much inform discussion before WWII, a period when France still thought of herself as the epitome of civilization, even having une mission civilatrice to the rest of the world.
    The main fracture after WWII is that the Leftist elites of Europe decided identity and nationalism were the causes of the trouble, and tried to wipe them out; while America decided that authoritarian dictatorship was the cause the trouble.
    BTW you still haven’t answered if you mind if your grandkids live in an Arabic-speaking Oslo.

    Reply

  8. Paul Norheim says:

    Again: “The idea of French “ethnicity” is not
    one which informs mainstream discourse in France. Under
    French law passed after the Vichy regime, it is forbidden to
    categorize people according to their ethnic origins. In France,
    as in many European countries, censuses do not collect
    information on supposed ancestry.”
    I repeat this quote just to highlight the historical context. Now,
    you know what the Vichy regime was, and what they did -
    don’t you?

    Reply

  9. nadine says:

    The claim that France is an immigrant country like the US is a new one to me. Immigrant countries need to assimilate immigrants, and France is doing a lousy job of it. I doubt you’ll argue otherwise. Immigrants to France are staying in unassimilated ghettos. According to this document, that’s just fine with French officials.
    So, apparently, being French has nothing to do with being French, you just need a French passport. You can speak another language, have a different culture, religion, whatever. You can remain an Arab from Algiers, a Chinese from Southeast Asia, not speak French, not adjust to French culture, not share French values, and still be absolutely French. That’s what you are saying.
    If you think about it, you can see that officials may say such things, but they don’t really mean them. Their refusal to consider the implications of their own policies is going to blow up in their faces in a big way in the not too far distant future.
    BTW, do you care if more Norwegians speak Arabic than Norwegian in forty years? You never said.
    What was Norway ever formed for, except as the expression of a Norwegian ethnicity? If there isn’t one, you might as well have stayed part of Sweden.

    Reply

  10. PissedOffAmerican says:

    What a bunch of horseshit. France, smance. Who gives a shit?
    Netanaziyahu will not agree to a fictitious extension of the fictitious building moratorium, so these entertaining forays into the realm of mental masturbation and intellectual grandstanding ain’t worth a tinker’s damn. Isn’t it obvious by now that there will be no Palestinian state? Don’t you get it yet?
    Its gotten to the point that all we are doing is providing a shameless bigot, pathological liar, and blatant hasbarist with a forum upon which to spew forth with her absolute crap.

    Reply

  11. Paul Norheim says:

    French Citizenship and identity
    According to the French Republic, the French people are
    those who are in possession of French nationality. According
    to the French Constitution, “France shall be an indivisible,
    secular, democratic and social Republic. It shall ensure the
    equality of all citizens before the law, without distinction of
    origin, race or religion. It shall respect all beliefs. It shall be
    organised on a decentralised basis.” [http://www.assemblee-
    nationale.fr/english/8ab.asp Article 1]
    Since the middle of the 19th century, France has exhibited a
    very high rate of immigration, mainly from Southern Europe,
    Eastern Europe, the Maghreb, Africa and Asia. According to a
    2004 report by INED researcher Mich

    Reply

  12. Don Bacon says:

    Norway has a king, just like he USA.

    Reply

  13. nadine says:

    “Basically it isn’t different, and that’s the whole point. Both the
    Palestinians and the Israelis think of themselves in terms of
    ethnicity, and this is what distinguish their way of thinking
    from how the French and the Americans define citizenship.” (Paul Norheim)
    American citizenship is different, that’s true: it’s contained in a contract called the Constitution, which immigrants can sign onto.
    But French citizenship has something to do with being French, or used to, or with signing onto French civilization. They are certainly doing a crummy job assimilating their Arab immigrants, excuse me, “youth,” as the papers always call them.
    What about Norway? Are you trying to tell me that a Norwegian ethnicity does not exist? That it’s all one to you if the majority of the country speaks Arabic instead of Norweigian in 40 years?

    Reply

  14. nadine says:

    Dan, if there is no ideology first, then there is no impetus for a state. If nobody cares about being Palestinian, they should rejoin Jordan.
    Unfortunately, they do care about being Palestinian but primarily for negative reasons: the ideology of being Palestinian is to take revenge on the Jews and kill them. That’s why no Israeli offer is even close to being good enough (despite the lies they tell their Western supporters). That’s why they never have and never will make an offer of their own that says: withdraw to here, accept so many refugees, and the conflict is over.

    Reply

  15. Dan Kervick says:

    Once there is a Palestinian state, the people who are citizens of that state can go about determining what they want its ideological foundation to be. Until then, its silly to argue about how the non-ideology of that non-state compares with Israeli ideology.
    And even after there is a Palestinian state, it will be a pointless argument anyway.

    Reply

  16. Paul Norheim says:

    “So explain how Israeli sectarian identity is so different from
    Palestinan sectarian identity?”
    Basically it isn’t different, and that’s the whole point. Both the
    Palestinians and the Israelis think of themselves in terms of
    ethnicity, and this is what distinguish their way of thinking
    from how the French and the Americans define citizenship.

    Reply

  17. nadine says:

    “…but insist on a quixotic effort to control the inner thoughts and ideologies of their adversaries.”
    One more point: the Israeli efforts to end “incitement” have never addressed anybody’s “inner thoughts”.
    The Israelis would just like the standard Palestinian educational curriculum to stop teaching each new generation of schoolchildren that the Jews are Europeans with no connection to Palestine, that all of Jewish history and the Holocaust are hoaxes, that Tel Aviv and Haifa belong to the Arabs, and it is the duty of every Palestinian to conquer them.
    That is what the Israelis mean by “incitement”, and that is what Palestinian schools do teach today.
    Imagine what Europe would look like today, if every German under 60 had spent his school years learning that it was his duty to reconquer Danzig and East Prussia for Germany; once Germany, always Germany! Germany would not be so peaceful as it is now, I imagine.

    Reply

  18. nadine says:

    “Nobody says that Israelis have to “repress their sectarian identity.” I only pointed out that Israeli sectarian identity, rather than citizenship, is the primary ideological foundation for the Israeli state, and that this is in tension with the enlightenment conceptions of republican government which you were initially making a big fuss over.” (Dan Kervick)
    So explain how Israeli sectarian identity is so different from Palestinan sectarian identity? (except that the Jewish identity is over 3000 years older) What is the ideological foundation for the putative Palestinian state? Well, actually it’s destroying Israel, so maybe it’s not the best example, but the main point is that you keep raising Israeli’s sectarian identity as some massive anti-republican problem, but the Palestinians’ sectarian identity, or the French or German or Swiss identity, all of which were crucial towards the formation of their republics, are accepted as being no problem whatsoever. For them, it’s a natural state of affairs. But for Israel, it’s a tremendous blot.
    In short, you have a massive double standard toward Israel, which results imo from your internalizing the Arab hatred of Israel, feeling that so great a hatred must be justified somehow, and searching for reasons to justify it.
    “Even if a peace deal is made, many Palestinians and Palestinian sympathizers around the world are going to go on thinking that Israel was created through the aggressive expropriation of Palestinian Arab land and dispossession of the people who lived on the land.”
    Yes, and because THEY do, you will keep searching out reasons that don’t make much logical sense to invent support for their attitudes, which are NOT based in a criticism of Israel’s insufficient republicanism, but pure sectarian antagonism and religious bigotry. If the Arabs of the Levant had all been Christian instead of Muslim, the Zionists would have worked out some modus vivendi 80 years ago. But Muslim cannot accept non-Muslim rule on a square inch of what they consider Muslim land, unless they are clobbered into doing so.

    Reply

  19. PissedOffAmerican says:

    There’s Dan, trying to coherently argue with some jackass that doesn’t give a damn about coherence. Ya gotta admire the clarity of his reasoning, if not his illogical and tenacious targeting.

    Reply

  20. Dan Kervick says:

    “Would that you were so equitable. In practice, the Palestinians are encouraged to express their sectarian identity in any form that occurs to them, however hateful or bloody. Only the Israelis are told to repress their sectarian identity; worse, the Israelis are told that their sectarian identity, uniquely, is not a source of legitimacy but illegitimacy, and they must forget about the Jewish aspects of their nationalism.”
    Nadine, your runaway emotions on this topic have filled your reflections with illogic.
    Nobody says that Israelis have to “repress their sectarian identity.” I only pointed out that Israeli sectarian identity, rather than citizenship, is the primary ideological foundation for the Israeli state, and that this is in tension with the enlightenment conceptions of republican government which you were initially making a big fuss over.
    I also said that any border-drawing peace arrangement is bound to accept Israel’s peculiar political and social institutions as an established fact, so it’s not much worth arguing over.
    I also suggested that getting a peace deal will be hard enough, and it becomes greatly complicated if the participants seek not just a sustainable political modus vivendi, but insist on a quixotic effort to control the inner thoughts and ideologies of their adversaries.
    Even if a peace deal is made, many Palestinians and Palestinian sympathizers around the world are going to go on thinking that Israel was created through the aggressive expropriation of Palestinian Arab land and dispossession of the people who lived on the land. History will never be undone, and the attitudes people take toward that history will always be their own affair. And many Israelis will continue to regard Palestinian Arabs as barbarous sub-humans. People will think as they think, and political power is largely incompetent to affect these thoughts. Politics can’t change them; war can’t change them; conquest can’t change them.
    Israelis seem to be plagued by self-doubts about their own legitimacy and lovability. Palestinians want the whole world to recognize their dignity and experience of injustice. But nothing that either Israel, Palestinians or the rest of the world can accomplish politically or militarily can cure those psychic pains or feed those psychic needs. We can’t be the Middle East’s shrinks.

    Reply

  21. PissedOfAmerican says:

    “I think Kathleen referred to Hillary Mann Leverett, Flynt’s wife”
    Thanks Paul. My disdain for the witch Hillary got the better of my thought process. I absolutely abhor the woman for her neo-connish machinations as SOS. She is every bit the scumwad that Bush’s SOSes were. Its true, SOS now officially stands for “Sack Of Shit”.

    Reply

  22. nadine says:

    “No, I have the modern enlightenment realization that the success of a thriving republic depends on the subordination of ethnic and other forms of identity to one’s identity as a citizen of the republican. No one needs to erase their ethnic or sectarian identity.” (Dan Kervick)
    Would that you were so equitable. In practice, the Palestinians are encouraged to express their sectarian identity in any form that occurs to them, however hateful or bloody. Only the Israelis are told to repress their sectarian identity; worse, the Israelis are told that their sectarian identity, uniquely, is not a source of legitimacy but illegitimacy, and they must forget about the Jewish aspects of their nationalism.
    Paul is right about Belgium and the non-viability of a one-state solution. It will apply to France too when the Muslims grow numerous enough.
    The modern world doesn’t have a better answer than a nation-state which most of its residents support, with protection for minorities in exchange for the basic requirement of not committing treason against the state.

    Reply

  23. Paul Norheim says:

    “…who put their ethnic or sectarian identity ahead of their
    identity as citizens, the republic can’t succeed.”
    Which is what is happening in Belgium right now, and likely
    would happen within a “one-state” framework in
    Israel/Palestine.

    Reply

  24. Dan Kervick says:

    I wrote this gibberish:
    “But if there are a large number ethnic or sectarian identity”
    … which should have been:
    “But if there are a large number citizens who put there ethnic or sectarian identity ahead of their identity as citizens, the republic can’t succeed.”

    Reply

  25. Paul Norheim says:

    I think Kathleen referred to Hillary Mann Leverett, Flynt’s
    wife.

    Reply

  26. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “When will any of these MSM outlets have Hillary and Flynt Leverett, Prof Cole, or Scott Ritter on to discuss the situation with Iran rationally?”
    Why Hillary? Care to tell us how Hillary differs from Bolton in regards to Iran?

    Reply

  27. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Rachel Maddow and Keith Olberman are just flip sides of Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity. These ARE NOT responsible and honest members of the so called “Fourth Estate”.
    Rachel’s complete and utter avoidance of ANY coverage or commentary about all things Israel robs her of any credibility she might otherwise enjoy for some of her political domestic coverage. She is obviously motivated by partisan agenda, and there can be no more detestable a calling than to use the media spotlight to divide and incite the people into partisan bickering and neighbor to neighbor animous. This bullshit is robbing the people of any power they may amass through general concensus. Maddow is made of the same scummy fiber these irritating fucks like Limbaugh are.
    I notice Steve’s appearences on MSNBC seem to have dried up. One hopes its because he got sick of participating and interacting with shameless propagandists and whores to the partisan agendas. I always felt that Steve’s comments on MSNBC were tempered by his defference to Maddow’s prejudices and selective agenda driven scripts. I believe he’s better than that, and that he fully recognizes what Maddow represents.

    Reply

  28. Kathleen says:

    Dirk clearly Rachel Maddow could be invited to the next rally that Bolton and team put together outside of the UN when the Iranian President is speaking. I have heard Maddow do this ranting about the Iranian President numerous times but does not apply those same standards when Netanyhu or the Israeli ambassador Micheal Oren make outlandish, inflammatory and completely false statements about Iran. NO NO NO Rachel will not go there.
    her outrage is selective. Very selective and so hypocritical. She has for days focused on the protest in Iran, repeated the false statement “Israel(oops) Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map” several times.
    Clearly on Iran Rachel Maddow is on the John Bolton team. Helping set the stage for a strike. Never ever criticizes Israel. Never
    Jon Stewart is the same way. Went off on Ahmadenijad the other night. Never ever hear him do that to Netanyahu or Micheal Oren or any Israeli leaders. Never. And then hides behind his bullshit line “oh this is comedy” Well then apply the same criticisms to Israeli leaders. They do deserve it.
    When will any of these MSM outlets have Hillary and Flynt Leverett, Prof Cole, or Scott Ritter on to discuss the situation with Iran rationally? Instead of them acting like we are watching Fox News when it comes to Iran…Rachel Maddow, Jon Stewart channeling John Bolton and Bill Kristol

    Reply

  29. Dan Kervick says:

    “You have the modern Leftist confusion: that to be a republic you must erase your own ethnic identity.”
    No, I have the modern enlightenment realization that the success of a thriving republic depends on the subordination of ethnic and other forms of identity to one’s identity as a citizen of the republican. No one needs to erase their ethnic or sectarian identity. But if there are a large number ethnic or sectarian identity
    “… in case you didn’t notice, Israeli Arabs ARE citizens of Israel, so Israel does have the republican idea of equitable treatment of minorities.”
    But in Israel, being a citizen doesn’t count for as much as it does in other true republics, because citizenship in Israel is a secondary status that is subordinated to membership in the ethnic vanguard that is held to possess the state, and for whose special interests the state exists.
    If a republic is a state governed of, by and for its people, then Israel is a republic in only a limited sense, since Israel declared at its founding, and has declared ever since, that it is the state “of” the Jewish people.

    Reply

  30. Cee says:

    Carroll,
    Americans should be fired up about this too!
    Tactics Becoming Surprisingly Overt With SWAT Team Raids
    by Jason Ditz, September 24, 2010 (antiwar.com)
    Earlier this week the Justice Department revealed that the FBI had been using false claims of

    Reply

  31. nadine says:

    Ah yes, a prime example of today’s intellectual degeneracy — cited by the local TWN anti-Semite. As the historian Yaacov Lozowick points out, the one thing Jews have done quite enthusiastically for the last two thousand years is write books. Sand ignores the existence of the entire corpus of Jewish literature. Citing any of it would be an inconvenience to his new grand theory.
    Truly, the university that would publish or praise such a pile of crap is degenerate in the purest sense. Just your style, Carroll.

    Reply

  32. Carroll says:

    nadine should read this.
    There is no such thing as the Jewish ‘people’…been saying that forever.
    It’s perfectly obvious to everyone with common sense they were a religion of diverse ethnics and not a distinct people.
    So glad someone has finally set about destroying that myth…in writting.
    About time we had some honest historians and not just myth making zionist on the subject.
    http://www.amazon.com/Invention-Jewish-People-Shlomo-Sand/dp/1844674223
    The Invention of the Jewish People [Hardcover]
    Shlomo Sand
    Shlomo Sand (Author)
    (Author), Yael Lotan (Translator
    Editorial Reviews
    Review
    Israel’s Declaration of Independence states that the Jewish people arose in the Land of Israel and was exiled from its homeland. Every Israeli schoolchild is taught that this happened during the period of the Roman rile, in 70 CE. The nation remained loyal to its land, to which it began to return after two millennia of exile. Wrong, says the historian Shlomo Sand, in one of the most fascinating and challenging books published here in a long time. There was never a Jewish people, only a Jewish religion, and the exile also never happened

    Reply

  33. nadine says:

    “The French people, according to modern French ideology, are just by definition the citizens of the French republic.”
    I don’t think it is, but if you’re right, the French republic won’t last long. If you don’t believe in your own identity, you will be replaced by someone else who believes in his own identity soon enough. The disparate birth rates of Arabs vs native French suggest this may happen sooner than you might think. If in 50 years the Muslims are a majority in France, turn Notre Dame de Paris into a mosque, and replace French law with sharia, what exactly will be French about France?
    You have the modern Leftist confusion: that to be a republic you must erase your own ethnic identity. This is the precise opposite of the 19th and 20th century definition of nationalism, where it was your national identity that justified your nation’s existence in the first place.
    “The Jewish people, on the other hand, are not simply the citizens of the Israeli state, but the members of a self-identified ethnic group”
    Don’t we keep hearing about Palestinian peoplehood? Don’t we? If peoplehood doesn’t count, why should the Palestinians be separate from Jordan at all? Why aren’t we pushing Jordan (which has far more responsible leadership than the Palestinians) to take the West Bank back? It would be a far more realistic deal to attempt.
    BTW, in case you didn’t notice, Israeli Arabs ARE citizens of Israel, so Israel does have the republican idea of equitable treatment of minorities. It’s the Palestinians who don’t. They insist that Palestine be ethnically cleansed of Jews.
    You ought to object to this. But you don’t. The double standard is so deeply ingrained in your thinking that it no longer occurs to you to judge the Israelis and Palestinians by one standard of behavior. You don’t have any consistent standard except the post-colonialist one: Euros are always in the wrong in conflicts with non-Euros (with the Jews counted as Euros for the argument).
    “All that said, Israel is a globally recognized fact, and has established its existence. ”
    Oh really? Did Ahmedinejad recognize it today? If Israel is recognized as an illegitimate fact whose name won’t even be spoken, that ought to be destroyed and its people exterminated, is that supposed to be good enough? This is not a rhetorical question btw. This is a deadly serious question.
    “The Palestinians shouldn’t have to declare any ideological commitments, formulas of submission, or historical judgments of fact as a pre-condition for getting a state. ”
    Yes they should – the most basic commitment: recognizing Israel as a legitimate, permanent state and signing an ‘end of conflict’ peace treaty with it. Egypt and Jordan did that. If the Palestinians won’t recognize Israel’s legitimacy, the Palestinian state will declare its purpose to be a staging ground for destroying Israel (with Iran’s help).
    Why the hell should Israel agree to that? As a simple practical matter, they won’t. So if you’re interested in actually reaching a settlement, you have to put that recognition on the list of minimal necessary requirements. Yours always has a long list of Palestinian demands but nothing from the Israeli side. Agreements don’t get made that way in the real world. It’s just that simple.

    Reply

  34. Dan Kervick says:

    ” … the conception of a Republic that has one government and one law for all its citizens, instead of having each minority group rule themselves at the dubious sufferance of the majority, which had been the medieval pattern.”
    It was a good idea. They should try it in Israel.
    The French people, according to modern French ideology, are just by definition the citizens of the French republic. The Jewish people, on the other hand, are not simply the citizens of the Israeli state, but the members of a self-identified ethnic group, existing both in Israel and outside it, and self-defined not just by culture, and certainly no longer by religion, but by a criterion of membership based primarily on biological descent. And it is part of the official ideology of the state of Israel that that the state belongs to this biologically characterized ethnic group in a peculiar and special way, a way which gives it privileges and priority over the state’s other citizens.
    And a global “agency” of that scattered ethnic group owns and administers land at the behest of that group and and in coordination with the state, in a manner from which non-Jewish citizens are excluded.
    This is a pretty far cry from the enlightenment ideals of republicanism you pretend to extol, and is much more a creature of the late 19th century ultra-nationalist and counter-enlightenment reaction in which Zionism was born.
    All that said, Israel is a globally recognized fact, and has established its existence. And it’s not up to me to tilt at ideological windmills to dictate its internal government. Once there is an established border between what is Israel and what is not Israel, so that we can say definitively what is an internal matter and what is an external matter, I’ll leave Israelis free to decide on their internal arrangements.
    The conflict is a conflict over territory. It’s not a thought crime or a inappropriate speech act. The Palestinians shouldn’t have to declare any ideological commitments, formulas of submission, or historical judgments of fact as a pre-condition for getting a state. By the same token, the Israelis shouldn’t be required to repudiate the Joan Peters thesis, or say “Nakhba” ten times fast while kissing the soil at Deir Yassin. All we need is to get a damn border, and get people to settle down to live on their side of that border. Then the Palestinians can go on thinking that the settlement is the ratification of a massive colonialist robbery, while the Israelis can go on thinking that the Palestinians are a faked-up conspiracy of Arab bugs. As long as they stay on their sides.
    It’s not up to the Palestinians to cure Israelis of all their neurotic insecurities, feelings of illegitimacy or existential doubts – or to give them any soul-soothing “recognition” beyond recognition in the ordinary geopolitical and diplomatic sense.

    Reply

  35. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “Carroll, you never do serious comments. You spew hatred and peddle conspiracies to everybody.”
    Hey Nadine, has anyone told you to go fuck yourself yet today??? Well, allow me.

    Reply

  36. nadine says:

    “In reality Hamas has a right to its positions, and the PLO has a right to its positions, and all other Palestinian parties who have supporters have a right to their positions. And, as in all realistic countries, elections are held, and the winners battle it out (metaphorically) for power. My impression with that last election was that PLO people were unwilling to establish power sharing with Hamas, and did their best to collaborate with Israel and the US to thwart the government actually working.” (Warren Metzler)
    …and Ahmedinejad has a right to his positions, and Saddam and Hitler and Stalin and Mao had a right to their positions, too. Certain kinds of positions lead to no more free elections, ever, have you noticed that?
    Your impression of the last election is incorrect. The PLO did establish a power-sharing arrangement with Hamas in Gaza after the election in 2006, which lasted until Hamas seized sole power in a coup in 2007. They killed hundreds of Fatah operatives at that time, throwing many off tall buildings.
    No future elections are scheduled.

    Reply

  37. nadine says:

    Carroll, you never do serious comments. You spew hatred and peddle conspiracies to everybody.

    Reply

  38. Carroll says:

    Actually I would love to see this happen…it would set Americans on fire.
    The repubs wouldn’t be able to resist using it against Obama, the ranks of the teabaggers would triple, and Israel would be roasted.
    It would be perfect!
    Bibi & Barney: Spring Pollard for 3-month freeze extension
    by Ira Glunts on September 24, 2010

    Reply

  39. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “If I told you the moon was made of cheese, would you engage me for 30 minutes in a debate over whether it’s made of Swiss or Pepperjack?”
    No, probably not. But I definitely would inform you that you are batshit crazy, and a giant asshole. And I would point out that you’re obviously a shameless bigot against cats, for if not, you woulda claimed, correctly, that it was made out of catnip. A blatantly bigoted argument strongly favoring mice deserves a strong oppositional response. Its despicable the way cats are under-represented when we are arguing lunar issues.

    Reply

  40. nadine says:

    J Street the anti-Israel so-called “pro Israel” group, is revealed as yet ANOTHER Soros-funded Astroturf front group. Boy, Soros has quite a collection, doesn’t he?
    Despite denials, Soros revealed as funding liberal Jewish group J Street
    By: Mark Hemingway
    Commentary Staff Writer
    09/24/10 4:25 PM EDT
    With liberals constantly upset about losing foreign policy battles, a few years ago J Street was founded to counter American Israel Public Affairs Committee

    Reply

  41. Carroll says:

    Posted by Matthew , Sep 24 2010, 1:48PM – Link
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    Yes I know.
    I don’t ‘do’ serious comments on or in reply to nadine…I just poke her in the eye occasionally because she says such stupid things.

    Reply

  42. dirk says:

    @ Kathleen, Sep 24 2010, 8:19PM – Link
    “Look at this rant of Rachel Maddow

    Reply

  43. nadine says:

    “This is obscured by the fact that the single expression “French people” is used to refer both to the people of France, i.e. the citizens of the French Republic, and sometimes to people of the older ancestral lineages descending from the inhabitants of France at some particular past point in time when the French state was created.”
    Dan, the use of the phrase “ancestral phrases” is inappropriate in this context. This is not about blood lines. No Frenchman would agree if I said to him, “If I could show you that YOU descend from Celtic Gauls, but your neighbor descends from Gothic Germanic tribes, would you agree you are more French than he is?” If their neighbor were French, he would say, “No, we’re both French.”
    This is about language, culture, tradition, world view, societal norms, religion: the whole cultural package that separates one people from another, in other words.
    A vibrant part of that French cultural heritage is the Enlightenment, out of which grew the conception of a Republic that has one government and one law for all its citizens, instead of having each minority group rule themselves at the dubious sufferance of the majority, which had been the medieval pattern.
    However, the idea of a Republic never tried to wipe out the idea of Frenchness in France, and you will notice that French is still the official language and the Catholic Church still the official religion (however little observed).
    This is actually part of the larger argument of who is to blame for the European disasters of WWI and WWII? The Left blames nationalism, while the Right blames totalitarianism. Because you take the Left’s positions, you read the very idea of a Republic as being anti-nationalist, which is ahistorical, as a brief survey of the history of the French republics should inform you.

    Reply

  44. nadine says:

    Warren,
    Fayyad doesn’t have control over the PA military or police. Fatah does. There is some effort on Gen. Dayton’s part to change this, but don’t hold your breath. Power in the Palestinian territories comes out of the barrel of a gun at the end of the day.

    Reply

  45. Kathleen says:

    Paul Lukasik. thanks for that link. Jon Stewart would not go near these issues several years ago. Always poking fun at different world leaders, circumstances but not near the I/P conflict. He and his writers have opened up some the last few years.
    This was a great interview but Stewart acted as if he had no idea that so many people in that part of the world are pissed off by the way the Palestinians had been treated. He had a Bill Kristol David Frum sort of reaction to the King Abdullah saying that the I/P issue was interconnnected to all other issues in the region. And then Stewart said well they will just find something else to be pissed about. Is the very same argument that Kristol, Frum and team give.
    Stewart has had Kristol on quite a bit and never never goes after him hard. Never

    Reply

  46. JohnH says:

    “Legitimacy” is important to the Americans. “Elections” are staged in Iraq and Afghanistan to put the proper facade on the occupations.
    But legitimacy in Palestine will only be an afterthought, left to powerful propaganda and public relations firms to create a non-existent reality. It worked for 60 years for Israel’s creation myth, they say, so why shouldn’t you be able to convince the world that a militarized, apartheid situation is a prosperous, modern democracy?
    Of course, that will work only if Obama makes good on his promise to have the US government oppose any attempts to delegitimize Israel and then proceeds to trash Americans’ 1st Amendment rights on behalf of a rogue foreign government.

    Reply

  47. Kathleen says:

    Look at this rant of Rachel Maddow

    Reply

  48. Matthew says:

    Warren: Those are great points. It is amazing that President Obama did not insist on Palestinian elections before pushing for negotiations. Instead, the US has decided that it likes this Palestinian Leadership, even though Abbas’s term has expired, and Mr. Fayyad got 2% of the vote in 2006.
    I, for one, am greatly concerned that Obama will arm-twist these men into agreeing to a horrible deal, which will rightfully be rejected by the Palestinian people at large.
    Obama wants a “deal”; apparently, it doesn’t matter if its fair or representative.

    Reply

  49. Warren Metzler says:

    For those of you who missed the presentation live, here is the video link http://www.newamerica.net/events/2010/building_palestine_under_occupation
    I found that PM Fayyad was unimpressive. He provided almost no specifics regarding exactly what he is doing to bring the state into existence; speaking mainly in vague platitudes about value of a state.
    Which causes me to believe that he is primarily an idea man, with (although he mentions, so is aware of, being practical) little interest in what is practical. Which is supported by the fact he was willing to work for the World Bank, which, along with the IMF, has a moral aversion for any solution that is real and actually works.
    Proof of his bureaucratic orientation is his repeated attempt to use the word empowered to mean being an individual who knows he has rights. To empower a person is to facilitate that person in achieving him achieve his full potential. If Fayyad was practical he would have instead referred to Palestinians becoming self-aware and demanding their God given human rights.
    It is utter nonsense to claim that the PLO is the main spokesperson for a people. Only a freely elected government can be the main spokesperson for a people.
    He refers to the difference between Hamas and the PLO as political, which makes no sense; proving him to be a bureaucrat at heart; all bureaucrats being people who love meetings, regulations, papers, and paperwork, but never need to actually accomplish a workable situation. There is no category called politics that describes what keeps two groups from arriving at resolution.
    In reality Hamas has a right to its positions, and the PLO has a right to its positions, and all other Palestinian parties who have supporters have a right to their positions. And, as in all realistic countries, elections are held, and the winners battle it out (metaphorically) for power. My impression with that last election was that PLO people were unwilling to establish power sharing with Hamas, and did their best to collaborate with Israel and the US to thwart the government actually working.
    When I see Palestinians consciously describing that the PLO is a political party and not a synonym for the PA, I’ll know they are beginning to grow up.
    A clear governmental structure should be established for the Palestinian people immediately, and then hold elections, and let the winner staff all those government positions, and be the party that negotiates with the Israeli government, instead of people who have long since exhausted their elected mandate (Abbas), or who have won no elected position (Fayyad). And if the western powers don’t support who wins the election, ignore them. Using their money to survive in all likelihood prohibits successful governance any way.
    Finally, no one asked, and they should have, how it is that Fayyad, who apparently has control over the military and police allows the frequent torture that occurs in Palestinian jails, and the repeated suppression of any anti-PLO demonstrations. That is certainly not the actions of a man who claims he loves peace.

    Reply

  50. JohnH says:

    “Engaging Nadine is like arguing with a tabby over the merits of a ball of yarn.”
    Actually I envision Nadine more as a caricature or cartoon figure, unable see any issue but in black and white–Amalek vs. Jews.
    And it’s exactly this attitude–and its accompanying arrogance– widespread among certain elements of her community that will soon cause Israel to screw up BIG TIME, bringing disgrace to all the people it claims to represent. That will mostly likely lead to another bout of virulent anti-Semitism.
    But, Nadine, in her simplistic, short sighted world view, can’t see the writing on the wall or the dire, ultimate consequences of the brutal behavior of her beloved Israel.

    Reply

  51. Cee says:

    I am THRILLED that Josh is making waves.
    Mondoweiss contributor Josh Ruebner has a great piece in today’s USA Today that predicts one way the administration might attempt to square this circle:
    To forestall a breakdown of this charade, into which Obama, Clinton, and Special Envoy for Middle East Peace George Mitchell have already invested so much political capital, the Obama administration appears to be playing a dangerous game to massage these seemingly irreconcilable positions.
    Although not yet an officially declared policy of the United States, its contours emerge from hints emanating from Clinton during the most recent round of negotiations. On her way to Egypt on Sept. 13, Clinton said, “We recognize that an agreement that could be forged between the Israelis and the Palestinians on actions that would be taken by both sides that would enable the negotiations to continue is in the best interests of both sides. This has to be understood as an effort by both the prime minister and the president to get over a hurdle posed by the expiration of the original moratorium in order to continue negotiations that hold out the promise of resolving all the core issues.”
    And how would she propose the parties jump this hurdle? “I think there’s a lot of ways to get to the goal. Remember, the goal is to work toward agreement on core issues like borders and territories that would, if agreed upon, eliminate the debate about settlements, because some areas would be inside Israel and some areas would not be inside Israel. So I think that there are obligations on both sides to ensure that these negotiations continue.”
    In other words, the difference can be bridged by arm twisting the Palestinians to agree up front on the land that Israel will annex, permitting unfettered colonization, in exchange for the privilege of continuing negotiations in the ever-dimming hope that some crumbs will eventually get tossed their way in the undetermined future. Call this policy “Annexation First, Mini-Statehood Maybe Later.”
    http://mondoweiss.net/

    Reply

  52. charles Kestenbaum says:

    I could not view the live streaming and your web site does not show clearly or easily how to actually view these events. When I clicked oon azny and all links, it did not open and said suerver was unavaiulable. which is a terrible way to encourage people to watch your broadcases, only to prevent them from doing s and creating a frustration and resentment that does not benefit NAF.

    Reply

  53. Matthew says:

    JohnH, POA, Carroll: May I make a suggestion?
    Whenever you see a comment labeled “nadine,” just skip over it. Seriously. Engaging Nadine is like arguing with a tabby over the merits of a ball of yarn.
    She and Wigwag just pollute the blog with nonsense. They offer nothing to respond to. Unless you think that “arguments” like “there will never be peace until Arabs learn to love their children,” etc., deserve a response. IMHO, they do not.
    If I told you the moon was made of cheese, would you engage me for 30 minutes in a debate over whether it’s made of Swiss or Pepperjack?

    Reply

  54. Matthew says:

    JohnH, POA, Carroll: May I make a suggestion?
    Whenever you see a comment labeled “nadine,” just skip over it. Seriously. Engaging Nadine is like arguing with a tabby over the merits of a ball of yarn.
    She and Wigwag just pollute the blog with nonsense. They offer nothing to respond to. Unless you think that “arguments” like “there will never be peace until Arabs learn to love their children,” etc., deserve a response. IMHO, they do not.
    If I told you the moon was made of cheese, would you engage me for 30 minutes in a debate over whether it’s made of Swiss or Pepperjack?

    Reply

  55. paul_lukasiak says:

    as an aside, Jordan’s king Abdullah was on the Daily Show last night, and pretty much said outright that unless the settlement freeze is extended beyond September 30th, that there would be more wars (plural) and that moderates in the region would be powerless to influence events and build a peace.
    http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-september-23-2010/king-abdullah-ii-of-jordan

    Reply

  56. JohnH says:

    No, Nadine, it is the Israelis who demand that Palestinians recognize a Jewish state without borders, giving Israel all the cover it wants to expel all Palestinians.
    As you said, “no matter how many times you utter your inane hateful gibberish about [Muslims,] the inconvenient facts remain [that it Israel that continues to ethnically cleanse Palestinians.] For those who wish to have some connection with the real world…
    I don’t know why Steve Clemons seems to think it enhances his reputation to have a blog full of comments from dopes like you.”

    Reply

  57. Dan Kervick says:

    “No, Dan, Ayalon wanted Fayyad to recognize that Israel IS the Jewish state, the nation-state of the Jewish people. Do you think that is an unreasonable demand?”
    Not necessarily. But if the document uses “two states for two people”, which sounds more like a vague election campaign slogan than a legal formula, you can see why someone wouldn’t want to sign on to such ambiguous language.
    “Dan, France already has a large number of Arabs too. Is France a French state or is a bi-national state?”
    It is certainly not a “bi-national” state. But it also not a French state in an ethnic sense, but rather in a Republican sense. The French constitution makes no reference to a French people which regards that people as anything other than the citizens of the Republic of France. France is a French state in the way Israel is an Israeli state – a state of its citizens – not in the way Israel is a Jewish state. This is obscured by the fact that the single expression “French people” is used to refer both to the people of France, i.e. the citizens of the French Republic, and sometimes to people of the older ancestral lineages descending from the inhabitants of France at some particular past point in time when the French state was created.
    Modern France has repeatedly turned back movements from the right to define the Republic of France in any way that seeks to underpin its official identity with an ancestral ethnic unity, rather than simply a political, cultural and linguistic unity.
    This whole business with mono-nationalism vs. bi-nationalism only makes sense in the context of a few places like Israel that have officially defined their political identity in ethnic terms, and constitutionally privilege one ethnic group within the state over other citizens.
    My own view is that negotiations over the settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict shouldn’t be getting into disputes over the internal political identity of the states that will result. We need a border and two states. It will then be up to the people who are citizens of those two states to decide on their domestic political arrangements and constitutional principles.

    Reply

  58. questions says:

    nadine, categories break down. France tries desperately to be a “French” state with a strong tradition of civic-mindedness, a “civic religion” (Rousseau), a purely French language, and no head coverings.
    People, being people, don’t let such boundaries stand for very long. Languages change and drive the purists crazy, people have sex and drive their grandparents crazy, religions merge and drive the priestly class crazy.
    Two states for two peoples is a useful fiction that will stand the way such things do — honored in the breach.
    But don’t forget, it’s a USEFUL fiction, and it will be used to guarantee preservation, a feeling or hope or promise regarding the future. Without that feeling, we don’t do well.
    Fayyad basically seems to get it. And I hope that many others figure this out as well.
    Narrative and fiction keep us going. Without the fiction, we acknowledge death, and then we die. Or we acknowledge death and then we kill. That’s the depression/aggression issue Fayyad refers to. (My terms. He uses belligerence and another term.)
    Perhaps the key to all of this is to think through “time management” where time is ultimate time, not clock time.
    Israelis and Palestinians both worry about ultimate time, and that worry has them murdering sleep pretty regularly. Fuckin’ ironic, ain’t it.

    Reply

  59. nadine says:

    Dan, France already has a large number of Arabs too. Is France a French state or is a bi-national state?

    Reply

  60. Carroll says:

    Posted by nadine, Sep 24 2010, 1:00AM – Link
    Have you noticed that anywhere on earth there is a truly intractable conflict, to the point where sides can’t even agree on a border, there are always Muslims involved? Israel, Kashmir?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    Humm…well actually we haven’t noticed that.
    However if that is the case, that Muslims are the world’s worst group…it seems strange that Jews, and not Muslims, are the ones who have always been a problem, rejected and reviled in country after country and by the world.
    Why do you suppose that is?

    Reply

  61. nadine says:

    Carroll,
    Still spreading the lies of the UN, I see.
    Theres a new book by Turkish journalist named ?efik Din

    Reply

  62. nadine says:

    “Suppose the the results of the peace deal consist of Israel, which continues to call itself “the state of the Jewish people” and the new state of Palestine which goes on to call itself “the state of the Palestinian people.” Would that be an instantiation of the two states for two peoples formula?”
    If each state recognized the other. Recognition is important, because without recognition there can be no statement of ‘end of conflict’. And why the hell should Israel agree otherwise? You’re not going to get an agreement if Israel’s legitimate interests for recognition and security are not included.
    Really, what’s so difficult? “Two states for two peoples” means: one for each. It does not mean no minority population, but that’s how the Palestinians (but NOT the Israelis) interpret it.
    “Is it the Likud-YB plan to expel the Palestinian Israelis from Israel after any peace deal? Is that what Ayalon wanted Fayyad to sign off on?”
    Don’t be ridiculous.
    No, Dan, Ayalon wanted Fayyad to recognize that Israel IS the Jewish state, the nation-state of the Jewish people. Do you think that is an unreasonable demand? Do you think that should be a show-stopper for the Palestinians?

    Reply

  63. Carroll says:

    Courtesy of a poster at mondo….
    The UN Report can be read in its entirety here:
    http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/15session/A.HRC.15.21_en.pdf
    The descriptions of what happened and shocking, and yet they are not. There is nothing that happened about the Mavi Marmara, and later in custody in Israel, that has not happened to countless Palestinians in the Occupied Territory.
    From the report on 3 of those killed:
    Deaths occurring on the Top Deck (roof)
    Furkan Do?an
    Furkan Do?an, a nineteen-year old with dual Turkish and United States citizenship, was on
    the central area of the top deck filming with a small video camera when he was first hit
    with live fire. It appears that he was lying on the deck in a conscious, or semi-conscious,
    state for some time. It (sic) total Furkan received five bullet wounds, to the face, head, back
    thorax, left leg and foot. All of the entry wounds were on the back of his body, except for
    the face wound which entered to the right of his nose. According to forensic analysis,
    tattooing around the wound in his face indicates that the shot was delivered at point blank
    range. Furthermore, the trajectory of the wound, from bottom to top, together with a vital
    abrasion to the left shoulder that could be consistent with the bullet exit point, is compatible
    with the shot being received while he was lying on the ground on his back. The other
    wounds were not the result of firing in contact, near contact or close range, but it is not
    otherwise possible to determine the exact firing range. The wounds to the leg and foot were
    most likely received in a standing position.
    ?brahim Bilgen
    ?brahim Bilgen, a 60 year old Turkish citizen, from Siirt in Turkey, was on the top deck and
    was one of the first passengers to be shot. He received a bullet wound to the chest, the
    trajectory of which was from above and not at close range. He had a further two bullet
    wounds to the right side of the back and right buttock, both back to front. These wounds
    would not have caused instant death, but he would have bled to death within a short time
    without medical attention. Forensic evidence shows that he was shot in the side of the head
    with a soft baton round at such close proximity and that an entire bean bag and its wadding
    penetrated the skull and lodged in the brain. He had a further bruise on the right flank
    consistent with another beanbag wound. The wounds are consistent with the deceased
    initially being shot from soldiers on board the helicopter above and receiving a further
    wound to the head while lying on the ground, already wounded.

    Reply

  64. nadine says:

    Hey, Paul, bet you believed Arafat when he told the NYT he was for the “peace of the brave too” Haaretz may be an Israeli paper but it’s the NYT of Israel, and like the Times, is drifting ever more to the left.
    Abu Mazen, July 28, as reported by the Palestinian WAFA news service, to the Egyptian media:

    Reply

  65. Dan Kervick says:

    What does “two states for two peoples” even mean? It’s hard to parse it.
    Suppose the the results of the peace deal consist of Israel, which continues to call itself “the state of the Jewish people” and the new state of Palestine which goes on to call itself “the state of the Palestinian people.” Would that be an instantiation of the two states for two peoples formula?
    Israel already has a large number of Palestinian citizens. So isn’t it already a bi-national state? And presumably some Jews will continue to live in Palestine, given the likely locations of the border between the two states. So won’t Palestine be a bi-national state?
    Does “two states for two people” just mean that there will be two states, and there will be two peoples who make up the populations of those states in some way or other?
    Or is it supposed to mean that there will be two states, each containing precisely one people each, and no other people?
    Is it the Likud-YB plan to expel the Palestinian Israelis from Israel after any peace deal? Is that what Ayalon wanted Fayyad to sign off on?

    Reply

  66. Carroll says:

    Well I guess Bubba will get a whipping from Hillary for this bit of truthiness.
    LOL…lets see if the dems disown Clinton like they did Carter.
    “Bill Clinton’s ‘Russian immigrants are obstacle to peace’ comment draws fire in Israel”
    Former U.S. President tells press that Russian immigrants and settlers are those least interested in peace in Israel.
    By Jonathan Lis and Natasha Mozgovaya
    Former United States president Bill Clinton came under fire from Russian-born Israeli politicians on Wednesday, a day after he told the media that the Russian immigrant population in Israel is an obstacle to peace with Palestinians.
    Former U.S. President Bill Clinton makes introductory remarks at the Clinton Global Initiative in New York, Tuesday, Sept. 21, 2010
    Photo by: AP
    “An increasing number of the young people in the IDF [Israel Defense Forces] are the children of Russians and settlers, the hardest-core people against a division of the land. This presents a staggering problem,” Clinton told a roundtable with press in New York. “It’s a different Israel. Sixteen percent of Israelis speak Russian.”
    Foreign Policy magazine quoted Clinton as saying that Russian immigrants are the Israelis least interested in a peace deal with Palestinians. “They’ve just got there, it’s their country, they’ve made a commitment to the future there,” Clinton said. “They can’t imagine any historical or other claims that would justify dividing it.”
    The magazine said that Clinton also mentioned a conversation with former Soviet dissident turned Knesset member Natan Sharansky, who, according to Clinton, was the only Israeli minister to reject the comprehensive peace agreement the former president proposed at the Camp David Summit in 2000.
    “I said,

    Reply

  67. nadine says:

    JohnH, it is the Palestinians who refuse to say “two states for two peoples” NOT the Israelis. No matter how many times you utter your inane hateful gibberish about “Jewish Surpremacists”, the inconvenient facts remain. For those who wish to have some connection with the real world.
    Oops, sorry, I know that doesn’t include you. You just want to hate Jews under fashionable cover.
    I don’t know why Steve Clemons seems to think it enhances his reputation to have a blog full of comments from dopes like you.

    Reply

  68. JohnH says:

    Nadine projecting her ambitions onto Palestinians once again: “The Israeli idea is that Israel should be proudly declared Jewish and contain NOT ONE Arab; but Palestine must be a bi-national state, as a kind of rest-stop on its way to becoming a Jewish state.”
    Yup, an amazingly good summary of what Jewish Supremacists want (and are implementing). But Nadine has the chutzpah to declare that it’s what the Palestinian side wants!

    Reply

  69. Paul Norheim says:

    “Fayyad: Jews Can Be Equal Citizens in a Palestinian State,” Haaretz,
    July 5, 2009.

    Reply

  70. nadine says:

    “The specifics of any particular shooting are less the issue than the general narrative of “shootingness.”"
    questions, now you have descended into self-parody.
    Just remember that this same “impressive” “moderate” Fayyad is the man who just stormed out of session with Danny Ayalon rather than put his signature to a statement that included the phrase “two states for two peoples”
    The Palestinian idea is that Palestine should be proudly declared Muslim and Arab and contain NOT ONE Jew; but Israel must be a binational state, as a kind of rest-stop on its way to becoming an Arab state. There are no Jewish rights to a state. Only Palestinian rights. That’s how they figure it.
    And remember, PM Fayyad is the most moderate of the Palestinian leaders!
    That’s one reason of many there will be no peace.
    Really, if Obama wasn’t such a total moron, he would have understood this, and been working on negotiations to support Fayyad’s work, instead of making big peace process announcements that will set off a third intifada.

    Reply

  71. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Blahblablah………

    Reply

  72. questions says:

    The specifics of any particular shooting are less the issue than the general narrative of “shootingness.”
    It’s too acceptable on both sides, and it’s only by honestly calling it all collateral damage and not the point of things that the negotiations can continue.
    Shootings must simply not be essence, they must be accident. It all must be redefined.
    Phronesis, poesis, sophia.

    Reply

  73. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “Notice how the local Israel bashers now consider that is no excuse – Jews have a duty to die without fighting back as far as they are concerned”
    Its always “defense”, isn’t it, Nadine? But only on the Israeli’s part. You really are a sack of shit. “Israel can do no wrong” is hardly an honest platform for debate. How does it feel to be loathed by an entire blog community, even some of your fellow Jews?
    Everything you say about the Palestinians applies to the Israelis. In spades.

    Reply

  74. Neo Controll says:

    Are you simply spreading more of your propaganda, Nadine, or have you actually watched the video and have something more to offer.
    –MCHQ

    Reply

  75. nadine says:

    questions, remember that Fayyad does not own the guns and the Fatah Central committee is stuffed with hardliners. This makes his path even narrower and harder – he must build whatever he’s building with the sufferance of both Israel and Fatah. I would put it to you that Fayyad is the man with everything to lose and nothing to gain from Obama’s misbegotten attempts at peace processing.
    BTW, the security guard in Silwan shot because he was being stoned by a mob and feared for his life. Notice how the local Israel bashers now consider that is no excuse – Jews have a duty to die without fighting back as far as they are concerned.

    Reply

  76. tree says:

    Paul, going to assume from your comment
    “I wouldn’t put too much faith in that poll, given that it was conducted by “the Jerusalem Media and Communications Centre”. I mean, lets say you’re a Palestinian. Are you going to tell a Jerusalem based polling organization that you support attacks against Israel?”
    that you made an assumption about JMCC that it is an Israeli outfit. It is not. From JMCC’s “about” page:
    “The JMCC was established in 1988 by a group of Palestinian journalists and researchers seeking to disseminate information on events in the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip.
    It was the first Palestinian organization to conduct regular opinion polls of Palestinian political attitudes, and these surveys have served as a critical benchmark on the health of the peace process for nearly two decades.
    For years, the JMCC produced the only Palestinian weekly in English, the Palestine Report, whose archives are still used by researchers today. Foreign correspondents were aided by the JMCC

    Reply

  77. questions says:

    What an impressive man.
    My thoughts after listening to this are first that he has THE toughest row to hoe. He must embody the Palestinian rage, the calm of a diplomat, the Gazan/PA split and the unity of his people, and the acknowledgment of Israel all in one psyche. I hope he either has a really really great friend to talk to when he goes bonkers in the evenings after long days, or a really great therapist who has a good sense of split psyches and political necessity.
    And I say this quite deliberately. Look what has to be woven together to make the region function. Two narratives that exclude each other have to become one in some new narrative that both contains and subverts, both holds and rejects, both celebrates and mourns the tales of these people. In some sense, such a story telling isn’t really possible. We don’t yet have the language. It is Mr. Fayyad’s job, above all else, to write the language and tell the tale.
    His project of building as opposed to depression or aggression is the right project. If it’s Sisyphean, as he notes, the Palestinians will still have water and roads and trash collection. And hopes and a funny/sad kind of messianism as they wait ever longer.
    And it’s best to assume that status because indeed the dignity of self-determination is much less dignified and much more labor intensive than it might seem. The habit of self-denial is a good one to cultivate for the future, as only self-denial forestalls corruption among officials and nativism and stupidity among people.
    The hope that self-determination will be magical is partially true and partially belied by the fact that keeping a state together is far harder than dreaming about a together state. Yes, people will assume a new affect, a new demeanor, a sense of safety and propriety. They will also want everything to work, to improve, to meet with fantasy. One only need look at how upset a chunk of Obama’s supporters are to see that governing after hope is not so easy.
    I sincerely hope that Mr. Fayyad can keep his rage AND keep it in check simultaneously. He must have both emotions ready to hand. I hope he can evoke fantasy and reality by turns, love and labor, and inspiration along with the realization that inspiration is only the beginning of labor.
    I hope that his views on Gaza are realistic enough that he sees that a partial resolution with Israel may be necessary. Israel will be beyond cautious regarding all moves, but more cautious than ever regarding anything having to do with Gaza.
    The Gazans are his people too, but Hamas’s worldview isn’t going to serve the Palestinians well, and I would guess that if something has to give it’ll be this.
    The building of settlements, of apartments and the like has to be seen in context — Israeli politics is politics as is Palestinian politics. Both sides have people who need to feel that things are being done. Don’t let it get in the way.
    There will be sporadic violence and small attempts to subvert. Don’t let them get in the way either.
    Keep your eye on the prize, and maybe just maybe those who would most sincerely like to keep fighting will lose this time around.
    Best wishes, and more, good skill as this process unfolds.
    A new story, a new, more whole and humane narrative is waiting to be told.

    Reply

  78. JimS says:

    James Fallows of The Atlantic introduced this talk by citing a “very positive” article on Fayyad in The New York Review of Books.
    The end note from which Fallows read aloud (number 3) cites the glowing praise of Fayyad by Roger Cohen and Thomas Friedman–praise that the rest of the article demonstrates is greatly overstated.
    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/oct/14/our-man-palestine/
    Was Fallows deliberately misleading the audience or did he not read the whole article?

    Reply

  79. Kathleen says:

    From the on line viewing audience. Come on let us in
    Question for PM Salam Fayyad.
    Can you please address the way and why the U.S. congress and President Obama rejected the Goldstone Report?
    Kathleen Galt
    Athens Ohio

    Reply

  80. Kathleen says:

    Spread the word over at Mondoweiss, Race for Iran, Salon, Informed comment.
    would like to put up a question for the guest. You know from the on line audience.
    Keep hearing the slow down of the expansion of illegal settlements and housing in E Jerusalem being described on NPR and other MSM outlets as a freeze or a moratorium.
    Do your guest think it is important to put the word PARTIAL in front of freeze of moratorium?

    Reply

  81. paul_lukasiak says:

    “….and a poll of Palestinians in the Occupied West Bank and Gaza found that nearly 60% of respondents oppose attacks against Israel….”
    I wouldn’t put too much faith in that poll, given that it was conducted by “the Jerusalem Media and Communications Centre”. I mean, lets say you’re a Palestinian. Are you going to tell a Jerusalem based polling organization that you support attacks against Israel? I’m surprised that only 60% said “I oppose attacks”… but I’d be equally surprised to find out that the number represents anything at all.

    Reply

  82. Kathleen says:

    Obama presses for Palestine at UN
    US president urges world leaders at UN General Assembly to support ongoing Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.
    http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2010/09/2010923123930507727.html
    BREAKING: ISRAELI DELEGATION SKIPS OBAMA

    Reply

  83. Kathleen says:

    here is the Al Jazeera tape that Prof Cole has put up in his latest where he references some of the work of Mondoweiss’s Phillip Weiss who is there.
    For some reason Prof Coles latest is not accessible at this time. This is an important clip
    http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/09/201092272213929692.html
    “time for the whole world to see”
    Except on our so called liberal MSM outlets like Rachel Maddow’s, Keith Olbermann and the rest.
    Complete Silence about this conflict. Complete silence about the Goldstone Report. Dylan Ratigan is opening up a bit. The rest of MSNBC Silent. Listening to their owners. Afraid they could lose their ccching
    please watch
    http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/09/201092272213929692.html

    Reply

  84. Kathleen says:

    Some important coverage about this at Phillip Weiss and Adam Horowitz’s site Mondoweiss.
    Scroll down to Silwan. But his most recent is critical too
    http://mondoweiss.net/2010/09/settlement-freeze-colonists-in-occupied-hebron-pour-concrete-on-four-houses.html#comments
    Also over at Prof Cole’s Informed Comment same issue. Hmmm Prof Cole just had a new piece up about the conflict in Silwan where he referenced Phil Weiss’ work and had an Al Jazeera tape of what had taken place and it is no longer accessible.
    Hope it opens back up an important Al Jazeera clip to watch on the killiong of the Palestinian father of five by an Israeli private security contractor
    part of the Al jazeera reporters words about the killing

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *