Anti-Semitism Is Rampant in the Middle East and North Africa

This is a reprint with permission of the author from Daily Kos: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/14/1299372/-Anti-Semitism-Is-Rampant-in-the-Middle-East-and-North-Africa. I was going to write something about this but got "beat to the punch"... So... Here it is:

The New York Times certainly got my attention with this headline: “26 Percent of World’s Adults Are Anti-Semitic, Survey Finds.”

http://www.nytimes.com/...
http://global100.adl.org

The survey in question was a global survey conducted by the Anti-Defamation League, and designed to probe the level and intensity of anti-semitism. The survey also found that half the respondents had never heard of the Holocaust. Now, that finding doesn’t necessarily mean the people are anti-semitic. It could to some extent just indicate ignorance. I’d consider it more anti-semitic if someone had indeed heard of the Holocaust, but denied that it actually happened or tried to argue that it was overblown.

Interestingly, the highest levels of anti-semitism are in the Middle East and North Africa. But before jumping to the list of the most anti-semitic countries, let’s take a look at the least anti-semitic countries, as measured by the percentages of adults holding anti-semitic views:

Thailand                    13%
Tanzania                    12%
Denmark                      9%
United States               9%
United Kingdom         8%
Vietnam                      6%
Netherlands                5%
Sweden                      4%
Philippines                 3%
Laos                        0.2%

http://www.timesofisrael.com/...

A couple of interesting observations. Some of these countries have almost no Jewish population, and few Jewish visitors, so one might suggest that lack of direct exposure correlates with the absence of anti-semitism. That isn’t really the case, however, as we will see when we reach the list of the worst offenders. Many of those virulently anti-semitic countries have no Jewish population or visitors, either. The other observation is that even in the good countries, there are significant percentages of respondents who believe that Jews put loyalty to Israel ahead of loyalty to their own country:

Sweden        27%
UK               27%
US                31%
Denmark      39%

The dual-loyalty claim is anti-semitic, but is also a form of prejudice directed against other minorities. For example, dual loyalty claims were common smears during John F. Kennedy’s presidential campaign.

Now let’s look at the worst offenders. Greece is apparently the most anti-semitic country in Europe, at 69%, but the Greeks are amateurs when compared to the Arab/Moslem world:

Morocco/Qatar/UAE     tied for 10th most anti-semitic, at 80%
Jordan      81%
Bahrain    81%
Kuwait     82%
Tunisia     86%
Libya       87%
Algeria    87%
Yemen     88%
Iraq          92%

And the most anti-semitic (cue drum roll, please)....

West Bank/Gaza 93%

Now I know that West Bank/Gaza isn’t actually a country, but if a Palestinian state is ever formed, that’s what it consist of.

So what is the takeaway from this survey? Well, as it applies to the prospects for peace between Israel, on the one hand, and the Palestinians and other Arab countries, on the other hand, it is both relevant and bleak. It is often argued that all Israel has to do is end the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and there will be peace. These extreme levels of anti-semitism, however, raise the distinct possibility that the Arab/Moslem world will never accept Israel, because it is the Jewish national homeland. Indeed, one must ask whether this conflict can ever end, as long as one side harbors such extreme prejudice and hatred towards the majority population of the other side. 

Hamas: Recognizing Israel is a Red Line

From JNEREBEL over at Daily Kos 

RE-PRINTED WITH AUTHORS PERMISSION

Note: Over at Daily Kos, the admins. have decided to attempt to create a "Fact Free Zone" around the discussion of the Israeli - Palestinian conflict. Only a few of the original Progressive / Liberal Zionists are left in the face of increasing administratively sanctioned anti-Semitic, anti-Zionist attacks.  One of these few JNEREBEL has been great in bringing full honesty to the endless barrage of hate that passes for writing over there.

US News reports today in an interview with Abu Marzouk, deputy chairman of Hamas' political bureau that Hamas will not abide by any of the Quartets requirements.

Hamas will not recognize Israel

Hamas will not renounce violence

Hamas will not abide by previous international agreements
Marzouk says recognizing Israel is a red line that Hamas will not cross. He further declares that Hamas military forces will remain separate and not be absorbed into the future Palestinian army. Having a standing militia not under government control would obviously imperil any future non-Hamas ruled regime with a waiting militia ready to attack it as well as Israel at any time.

Al-Monitor: The weapons wielded by the al-Qassam Brigades constitute one of the hardest issues dealt with in the reconciliation effort. What are Hamas’ proposals in this regard, and what are the red lines that you think must not be crossed? Will you allow the brigades to be assimilated into the Palestinian security forces? 

Abu Marzouk: This issue was not discussed at all in reconciliation negotiations with Fatah; it was never put on the table. The al-Qassam Brigades’ weaponry is of national importance to confront the occupation. Hamas’ position in this regard is clear, and it will not allow any tampering with the brigades’ armament, under any circumstances, because it is a strategic asset for all Palestinians. In contrast, the Quartet negotiations require that violence be renounced, which, in effect, means that the al-Qassam weapons must be decommissioned. But this is unacceptable, and Hamas will reject it outright.

Al-Monitor: It was not clear whether Hamas would endorse the agreements signed between the PLO and Israel, if it became part of the former. Can you clarify the movement’s position in this regard?

Abu Marzouk: Hamas will not recognize Israel. This is a red line that cannot be crossed. The future government is not interested in providing Israel with recognition, and the conditions set by the Quartet committee do not concern us one bit. We would have spared ourselves seven years of misery under the siege and two wars in 2008 and 2012 had we wanted to recognize Israel. Hamas underwent great political pressure and suffering during the past years, and yet it did not recognize Israel.

PM NETANYAHU IS RIGHT - AN OPEN LETTER TO AMOS SCHOCKEN

It really is simple. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is absolutely right in his insistence that Israel be recognized as  the National Homeland and State of the Jewish People.

Now I certainly cannot lecture you and any other Israeli on your feelings in this matter. I am not Israeli. I lived in Israel for a time when I was younger, but I didn’t stay and make Aliyah. I never served in Tzahal. I never really sacrificed for Israel. I give money to the Magen David, and I have spent over the last 38 years or so thousands of hours as part of the Zionist Movement. But, I do consider myself a strong supporter of the Zionist dream, and I would ask that you and others that share your opinion please consider my words here. 

I think you are mistaken in your piece in Haaretz when you argue here against Ari Shavit’s (and by extension the Prime Ministers position) piece in the same newspaper.

In that piece you rightly recognize that those of us who support the fact that Israel needs to be recognized as the National Homeland and State of the Jewish people cite this as the core the principle of Zionism itself.  After all what is Zionism in it’s most essential form if not the philosophical underpinning that the Nation of Israel indeed be the National Homeland of the Jewish People.  Isn’t that the root definition of the term “Zionism”?

It is after this that your argument goes awry.  You state:

“Contrary to what Shavit says, having the State of Israel alongside a Palestinian state, with the two living in peace with one another, is the aspiration of many good people. They will be satisfied if peace will be merely with the Palestinian state, and not with the nation-state of the Palestinian people.

In order to create an artificial balance and justify his position, Shavit invents a Palestinian nationality. If there is a Palestinian nationality (if there is such a thing as a nationality altogether), then in Jordan there are apparently two nationalities – the Palestinian one and the Bedouin one.”

First of all… While that may be the aspiration of many good people in the Peace Camp, and I know that there are many good people in the Peace Camp, that is not the aspiration of the majority of the Palestinian people. Nothing happens in a vacuum and the Israeli Palestinian conflict is certainly no exception to that rule. Whether or not you (or the interestingly enough the Hard Right that denies that there even is a “Palestinian People”) recognize Palestinian nationalism, it exists and the Palestinians recognize it. So de facto (if not de juer) does the U.N. who has recognized a Palestinian State from 1948 and forward.

And so yes in Jordan, there are two nationalities and they have been at odds whether we like to recognize that or not. Of course why else did Jordan declare that people in the West Bank were not citizens of Jordan? The ruling Hashemites recognize a difference and so do those in the opposition to that regime. Are you really arguing that the Palestinians in Jordan do not recognize themselves as Palestinian?

But being Palestinian doesn’t mean that one cannot be Jordanian as well. If a person feels that their nationality is Palestinian but wants to live or supports the political system in Jordan then I see no reason that someone cannot be Palestinian-Jordanian. Just as people can be part of the “Jewish Nation” (meaning being bound to the ethnic traditions and culture of the Jewish people) and live in America, or Europe, or any other part of the diaspora. Certainly I can still be a committed Zionist and not live in Israel (though some may certainly disagree).

Ok, anti-nationalist feelings aside. You then go on to say:

“When Israel recognized the fact that there are Palestinians deserving of self-determination, the Palestinians recognized Israel – that same Israel that was founded on the constitutive principles of Zionism. What’s missing is an agreement on substance – borders, security, refugees and Jerusalem.”

No… the Palestinians DID NOT recognize “that same Israel”. They recognized that there would be a State called Israel and that was it. Why do I say that? Because had they recognized an Israel founded on the constitutive principles of Zionism they would have renounced the so-called “Palestinian Right of Return”. Borders, security and the status of a City (even as important as Jerusalem) are all up for discussion, even if they are breaking points in themselves. The refugee situation and insistence on “Right of Return” (not to confused with the Hoq’ HaShvut) goes right to the heart of the situation.

The Palestinian polity has never given up on that and still doesn’t to this day. 

The insistence on that “Right” has publicly been stated by P.A. President Abbas and is certainly supported Palestinian Public Opinion (which also by the way rejects a Democratic Palestine where Jews and Arabs enjoy equal rights). Of course everyone understands that this would cause a demographic shift in Israel which would cause Israel to cease to exist in the terms that the nation was founded upon.

What is proof of this? Well, look at the BDS (Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions) Movement. It proposes a boycott of only Jewish businesses in Israel. Of course it doesn’t say that (because credit to them, they are media savvy enough to understand just how destructive that would be) but ask any member of said movement if they also advocate boycotts of Palestinian/Arab Israeli businesses, sports teams, cultural groups or academics. Every time I have run into BDS people, I ask that question and every time the answer is the same “No”. Of course they couch their terminology in just saying it’s about Israel but if you don’t boycott the Arabs in Israel exactly who is left to boycott? Either the Jews or the small percentage of immigrant non-Jews.

You then go on to say:

“…Will he (Shavit) accept a Palestinian recognition of a Jewish nation-state that is built on the ruins of 400 Palestinian villages and hundreds of thousands of refugees, who have since become millions, and where 20 percent of the citizenry are Palestinians, who are just as nationalist as he is?

Those who present themselves as supporters of the two-state solution, but who insist on demanding recognition of a nation-state, are acting to perpetuate the occupation and settlement.”

I cannot speak for Ari Shavit but I think I can safe safely say that (at least according to the polls) most Israelis WOULD accept a Palestinian recognition of a Jewish State that is “built on the ruins” of villages and creation of war-time refugees. I live in the U.S. and I accept that my nation was built in part by war, and conquest. It happens, in the world. It has happened since the dawn of time and it will continue to happen into the future. No matter how much we wish it would not, it is simply unrealistic to think it will not. Oh and by the way, you can bet that the Palestinians would ALSO accept a nation built on the smoking ruin of Israel and the creation of millions of Jewish refugees.

Supporting a “Two State Solution” and recognition that the only real way to a lasting peace (something that I very much do support) is in understanding BOTH peoples legitimate aspirations for self governance. To recognize this fact does nothing to delegitimize the history of Palestinians who lived in the Mandate.

Personally, I believe Shavit is absolutely correct when he says:

“…..because it is actually impossible to demand from the Palestinians that they change their spots and convert their identity, it is required to demand they recognize this: that the Jewish people is a people of this land, and it did not arrive here from Mars (my emphasis). It is necessary to demand of them to admit that the Jewish people has a history of its own and a tragedy of its own and its own justification. The Palestinians must concede that the Jews are not colonialists but legal neighbors. There will not be peace if the children growing up in the Deheisheh refugee camp will not know that the country across the border is a legitimate Jewish state of a true Jewish people, whom they are decreed to live with. It is those who give up on the recognition of Israel as a Jewish state who are actually giving up on peace.”

This is important and I think this is where you and others in the Peace Camp go awry. I do not doubt the intentions of many there. I am not a raging Right Winger, in fact I come from a Center-Left perspective. I follow Israeli politics closely and where I there, I would probably vote for either Avodah or HaTnuah. I understand that people want peace and want to find a way to find a “just peace” for this conflict. So I am not demeaning anyone on the Left.

That said, I have to say that the PM’s argument in this case is correct. His demand cuts to the heart of the matter and it is one that needs to be addressed whether one likes it or not. Shavit is correct in identifying that this conflict does not take place in a vacuum and that the Palestinians and their supporters do need to take responsibility for their part / actions in this conflict. That is not some racist or harsh demand. It is a demand that necessitates a real peace treaty.

Of course, there is a certain amount of hopelessness to resolving this conflict peacefully and who really wants let their optimism for a resolution drain down a “sinkhole of despair”? I don’t think anyone outside of extremists in either camp wants that. But we also cannot be blind to what is happening beyond the Green Line in the fractured Palestinian Polity or to their supporters throughout the world. Just wishing for an end to Nationalism, or supporting solutions like a proposed creation of the United States of Isratine (or other ridiculous names), might be fine in a fictional 24^th Century Earth (Star-Trek reference here), but this is not that place and not that time. AND given the history of the Jewish people is that really something that we can “bank on” right now.

So Mr. Schocken (and those who agree with him), unless you are willing to simply come out and declare the Zionist dream D.O.A. or renounce that, then you should very much re-consider your arguments here. Zionism defined is the National movement of the Jewish People. Israel was created by Zionism and it is something that must be recognized or there cannot be lasting peace.

AND NOW FOR THE ULTIMATE BDS FAIL.... MAHMOUD ABBAS REJECTS THE BDS MOVEMENT

Even while the American Studies Association (ASA) now endorses the hateful and anti-Semitic Boycotts, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement (as seen in the story below), a movement which is aimed at ending the existence of Israel, still the BDS movement faces "pushback" from none other than the President of the P.A. Mahmoud Abbas.

In a statement by Abbas last week:

While in South Africa this week for the memorial service for Nelson Mandela, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas stunned reporters and Palestinian activists alike when he stated that the Palestinians do not support a boycott of Israel.

Abbas did advocate boycotting Israeli products made in the West Bank, on territory that the Palestinians envision as part of their future state.

“No, we do not support the boycott of Israel,” the Palestinian leader told a group of South African reporters on Monday. ”But we ask everyone to boycott the products of the settlements. Because the settlements are in our territories. It is illegal.

“And the Israelis should first of all stop building in our territories, should stop everything in our territories,” he stated, according to South African media outlet The Star..“But we do not ask anyone to boycott Israel itself,” he reiterated. “We have relations with Israel, we have mutual recognition of Israel.”

Now proponents of the anti-Semitic and hateful BDS Movement will raise a number of objections... All of which clearly demonstrate the absolute moral bankruptcy of their position, but let's go through those arguments one by one.

1. In speaking out against Abbas we have University of Tel-Aviv Student Omar Barghouti make the following statement, (I will let the irony of this stand):

“There is no Palestinian political party, trade union, NGO network or mass organization that does not strongly support BDS. Any Palestinian official who lacks a democratic mandate and any real public support, therefore, cannot claim to speak on behalf of the Palestinian people when it comes to deciding our strategies of resistance to Israel’s regime of occupation, colonization and apartheid,” Barghouti said.

This might actually be one of the most ironic statements that could possibly made by any actor in this "theater". I mean here is Omar Barghouti a student at an Israeli Institution of Higher Learning saying that Abbas... because he seemingly does not have a "democratic mandate" from the Palestinian People cannot speak for them in dealing with the Israelis (forget that Abbas is the President of the Palestinian Authority). Well then.. .exactly where is Omar Barghouti''s democratic mandate from the Palestinian people. In poll after poll he does not show up on the radar of the Palestinian Polity  so honestly who gives him a mandate to speak for the Palestinian people.

2. But speaking of a mandate from the actual Palestinian people. it seems that activists like Barghouti and others in the "Palestinian resistance" are certainly NOT the ones who have a "democratic mandate" and that Mahmoud Abbas actually has far more of a "mandate" than Barghouti and the BDS crowd.

Don't take my word for it though, just ask the Palestinians themselves. In looking at the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PSR) latest poll from Sept. 2013. We find that 60% of Palestinians oppose disbanding the Palestinian Authority and that PA President Abbas 50.8% of respondents say they would vote for Abbas in the next election and that his approval rating was at 49.3% amongst respondents with Abbas winning over 54 % of the vote in the West Bank. So... so much for the "mandate" question. Unless by the word "mandate" Barghouti means "only a solid minority of voters". 

3. Also, let's not forget that the BDS movement claims to represent the Palestinian People (though as we see above they don't) but remember, the BDS movement told the world that it's end goal was to see a One-State Democratic solution where Jews and Palestinians live together in total equality. Unfortunately for them here too they fall a bit short in their desire for this with Palestinian Public Opinion. If one looks at this question: 

"Would you support Abandon the two state solution and demand the establishment of one state for

Palestinians and Israelis" (note that this question was asked before and worded "Would you support a state where Jews and Arabs live in full equality". 

The Answer: only 28.6% of respondents support that. SO.. I guess when the BDS movement says that they represent a majority of Palestinians, they really mean that their goals are actually supported by a solid Minority.  

 

If one were to ask the Palestinian people according to the latest PCPO Poll what is their favored methods of "resistance" here is what you get:

 

49.1% FAVOR more rockets from Gaza while 45.2% oppose that action.

 

So in all honesty. It seems that the BDS movement while a majority of the Palestinian people (according tho the polls) DO support the end goal of the BDS Movement.. .that being the annihilation of Israel, they

certainly do not support the goals that the BDS Movement presents to the gain supporters amongst useful idiots in the West. And in that respect it is hard to see where supporters of the BDS Movement can legitimately claim to speak for anyone outside of their own small group. 

Given all that, just why did Mahmoud Abbas reject the BDS Movement? My guess is that he first of all sees their calls for a Single Democratic State as antithetical to his attempts to run the Palestinian Polity for the rest of his life. 

 

I also think that while he sees the hateful anti-Semites duping not so bright Westerners (who want to also legitimize their hatred of Jews), he understands that the U.S. and E.U. sees through their facade, (the facade of BDS)  and that their efforts to end the Jewish people's presence in the Middle East is a step too far for these powers. 

He understands that without the backing of the U.S. and relatively secular Arab Governments (Jordan, Egypt) that his government would cease to exist. SO.. of course he will adopt a policy stance similar to what the European Community is asking for (which is complete withdrawal from the Territories and division of J'slem) and not leave himself open to any hardships that a Western Boycott of Palestinian radicalize would generate. 

In the end no matter how Western Useful Idiots and their supporters want to spin this, Abbas' denunciation of the BDS movement is far more powerful than a bunch of bigoted professors and academics and their pronouncements regarding Social justice

 

 

Israel and Buridans Ass

Israel and Buridan’s Ass

With Deputy Defense Minister Danny Danon’s recent pronouncement regarding the issue that this Israeli government would never accept a Two State Settlement, an old paradox comes to mind regarding a Paradox of choices 

“Buridan's ass is an illustration of a paradox in philosophy in the conception of free will.

It refers to a hypothetical situation wherein an ass that is equally hungry and thirsty is placed precisely midway between a stack of hay and a pail of water. Since the paradox assumes the ass will always go to whichever is closer, it will die of both hunger and thirst since it cannot make any rational decision to choose one over the other.^[1] The paradox is named after the 14th century French philosopher Jean Buridan, whose philosophy of moral determinism it satirizes. A common variant of the paradox substitutes two identical piles of hay for the hay and water; the ass, unable to choose between the two, dies of hunger.”

Wherein Israeli Democracy finds itself in the position of the Ass…

Now before we start, lest anyone scream and shout about this in some way denigrates Israel or supports the dissolution of Israel, it does neither. Rather, it is a reflection of a concern that I have regarding the future of Israel.

Because of The Occupation of the West Bank, Israel faces some existential questions regarding its character as a State. With Danon’s pronouncement, the nation needs to decide what path it wants to go down. Is Danon right, despite protests from upper echelon Likud / Betainu ministers and officials, that there is a large enough group of MK’s that would block any agreement for a Two State Solution and at the very least will maintain the “status quo” indefinitely? OR Will Israelis reject the One State Solution or continuation of the status quo and force new elections in the face of some very serious existential questions?

One of these questions regards the nature of Israel’s democracy. Here I would pose three points of view regarding that. Now remember, according to Israel’s Declaration of Establishment

THE STATE OF ISRAEL will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations….


WE APPEAL - in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months - to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions.

The very call for “Jewish Democracy”.

The above paragraphs from the Declaration of Establishment lay out some of the founding democratic principles of the founding of the State of Israel. The Declaration promises equal rights, full and equal citizenship to all Israelis, be they Arab or Jew. It doesn’t talk about second class citizens, and it doesn’t support disenfranchisement. So given that – here are the concerns to Democracy.

If Israel actually does formally reject the Two State Solution what are its options as a Democracy. Well, one route being discussed is that should Israel annex the West Bank, the Arab population living in the West Bank would have every civil right that Jewish citizens of Israel would have but that they would NOT have the right to vote in National elections. In other words, approx 2.7 million Palestinians (other reliable estimates put the numbers at 2.6 million) would be disenfranchised and have no vote for the leaders of their nation.

Just this would mean that Israel as a nation would be turning away from both its Declaration of Establishment AND it’s commitment to Democratic processes. One source of pride for Israel is that it can rightfully point out that it is a Liberal Democracy in a sea of Autocratic and Theocratic regimes that have no interest in human rights and/or democratic processes. Sure Egypt just voted, but, then their government put forth changes in political process which would hamstring those same democratic processes. Yes Lebanon has some form of strange Democracy but honestly, only as much as Hizbollah and their Iranian allies allow.
So, with the absorption of 2.7 Million Palestinians the demographic representation of Israel would change from 75.4% Jewish (6.042 million Jews to 1.658 million Palestinians out of 8.018 million people) to having a population of 10,618,000 and the demographic split would be approx. 57% - 43%.

OF that 43% of the population, more than half of that figure would have no voice in the election of their nation’s leaders.

This brings us to the second part of the equation, with Birthrates, Aliyah (and Yeridah) the Jewish population of Israel is growing at approximately 1.8% per year as compared to the Arab population with was growing at 2.4%, this would eventually create a Jewish MINORITY in Israel (which would not bode well for long term stability as minority states don’t tend to last for that long in today’s world), most likely within three decades.

In either case, whether or not the Arab population of Israel is allowed to vote, with the full annexation of The Occupied Territories, Israel as a democratic nation as envisioned by it’s founders would cease to exist either in the near term or thirty years from now.

For some, the nature of Israel as a democracy is simply not that important. It is obvious through their advocacy and policies that they don’t see the Israel in those terms and that the existence of Israel first and foremost as a Jewish State trumps anything else. For them, this is the reality of the Occupation and re-settlement of “Eretz Yisrael”.

One should then ask - What part of Israeli society do they represent? Well if one uses the election as a guide – the advocates of One State (or at least advocates of a de facto One State better known as the Status Quo) hold 43 seats in the current government out of 120 total seats. According to a recent Panels poll they would hold 42 seats if elections were held today (and the neo-Kahanist Otzma L’Israel would cross the electoral threshold and gain three seats).

For a bit of perspective, the advocates of Two States (in some form IF you count Yesh Atid – who seem to endorse the idea if not completely willingly), now hold 42 seats but would hold 54 seats in a new election. I don’t count the Arab parties here because none of them nor Hadash (A mixed Arab and Jewish party) advocates for anything but a Palestinian One State Solution.

Then of course, it is important to think of the ramification of this. IF Israel, decides to annex and allow full democracy (something I think they should do IF they decide to annex – because I am strong believer in “be careful what you wish for”, AND I am a huge fan of democracy as a system of government), then Israel would cease to be the National Homeland and State of the Jewish people. It would be a democracy and who knows how that would end (Personally, I believe that it would be full of strife and eventually force a Two State solution).

OR if Israel maintains the Status Quo or annexes (per Danon and the Right) then Israel would in effect cease to be a democracy, and would face the incredible problems that ruling over a sizable minority, a minority that doesn’t have full civil rights, presents. Not too mention that in this case annexation goes against the very foundation of democratic government of the State.

So, how does Israel solve this problem – how does it (as Buridan’s ass in the paradox) choose a path out of this? Well, in one respect it could drop all pretense of being a democracy, declare an end to democratic processes except for some individuals and watch what happens. Maybe nothing happens and no one cares, but I would assess that this is irresponsible thinking at best, more likely purely delusional. The problem of course with this is that at least half of their populace (and polity) fully disagrees with this, thus setting off their own issues. Also, is it realistic to think that there would not be repercussions from Israel’s trading partners and main ally, The United States? I think the obvious answer is no. There will be repercussions and harsh ones at that.

This would be the same for the solution that the Hard Right advocates which is to, expel the Arab population. Now, how would that go over with Israel’s own population, the rest of the world, and with their key ally the United States? Somehow, I don’t think that would float well. The idea of wholesale ethnic cleansing would not sit well with most Israelis, and for sure would bring on international isolation on the order of North Korea not to mention immediate war with its neighbors and with no ally to back it. Further, that would be a “step too far” for even the moderate Right (if that term makes sense). Even they wouldn’t support that.

At the same time, Israel is faced with the very real issue that the other side (the Palestinians) don’t seem to be able to step back from their maximalist demands. While advocates for the Palestinians cite a 55% acceptance of a Two State Solution amongst the Palestinian Polity and general support for the Arab League revised offer, no one mentions the issue of “Right of Return”, which would create an Arab Majority in Israel (and thus end Israel as the National Homeland and State of the Jewish People) should Israel even accept that agreement.

Polls of the Palestinian Polity show no willingness to compromise on their claimed “Right of Return” to Israel proper. A clear 70% of Palestinian respondents polled put “Right of Return” to Pre-1967 Israel as either the first or second priority for a new Palestinian State. So while, there is “acceptance” of a Two State Solution amongst the Arab populace, it is two states of Palestine and Israel run by Palestinians. Given that, why would Israel accede to any demands that the Palestinians make?

Where can Israel go at this point? Danon brought the issue public, but he represents a sizable minority of the Israeli populace. IF Israel takes the path laid out by Danon (either annex or maintain the status quo, Israeli democracy dies. Even if Israel takes Naftali Bennett’s path (as laid out in HaBayit HaYehudi’s platform), they kill their democracy because in the end ruling over Autonomous land areas really is not the same thing as those people in the Autonomous area’s creating their own nation.

At the same time, capitulation to Arab demands would not bring peace either. It might work with some of the nations that are already in a treaty with Israel, and perhaps some of the Gulf States might be more willing to deal, but the hardliners in Lebanon, and Syria (no matter who wins the Civil War there) would never go for it and really neither would the Palestinians. SO the nation faces existential questions in this regard as well.

Still, inactivity only would result in further problems. The American Government is offering their full backing to at least getting the Peace Process going again. It is my belief, that the current Israeli administration should completely reject Danon’s statements and work with Secretary Kerry and the Obama Administration to get discussions moving if for nothing else than both sides to lay out clear and final goals in an international setting.
In my mind, Israel should offer the Olmert map of 2007-08, a map that would guarantee Israeli security as well as would maintain the neighborhoods and areas built up in the post 1967 period and at the same time allowing the Palestinian polity a better chance at full representation for themselves. Also, I think that Israel should at least discuss at least Autonomous Palestinian control over neighborhoods and Muslim sites in Jerusalem. In return, Israel should settle for nothing less than complete Palestinian renunciation of their “Right of Return” to any parts of Israel and that there needs to be a full peace treaty with full economic and societal relations between the two nations.

Of course the question is, is this realistic in today’s climate of mutual mistrust and (judging by some of the comments posted in discussion forums) hate? I don’t know. It has not been really tried. Olmert never presented his final map to Palestinian President Abbas. A “final take it or leave it” discussion dealing with tricky issues like Jerusalem and Palestinian “Right of Return” has never been had in an international forum. But those are the two thorniest issues and the two issues that need to be settled for there to be long lasting peace.

Should the Palestinians reject this, then I believe it is incumbent upon the Israelis to simply create borders that would guarantee Israeli security and at the same time would allow the Palestinians to create their own separate and distinct state from Israel thus removing any demographic issues and threats to Israeli Democracy and too the nations founding principles.
I believe this is the only way that Israel can maintain it’s democracy without having to compromise itself in an unhealthy manner. In the end, this is up to the Israelis. Are they willing to make the hard choices that nations face? The one thing is that they simply can’t be like Buridan’s ass and simply do nothing until the situation becomes far more dire.

An Open Letter to Roger Waters

Dear Mr. Waters,
As a fan of Pink Floyd and of your music in general I have to tell you that I was severely disappointed in the letter you wrote to try to convince Alicia Keys NOT to perform in Israel.  I would be very remiss if I did not tell you that your letter is full of contradictions and outright falsehoods.
You write:

“We are all part of the same old story, nothing has changed since the bad old days of apartheid South Africa and Segregated America. We must stand united with all our brothers and sisters against racism, colonialism, segregation and apartheid.

Please, Alicia, do not lend your name to give legitimacy to the Israeli government policies of illegal, apartheid, occupation of the homelands of the indigenous people of Palestine.

Others may try to persuade you that by playing in Israel you may magically effect some change; we know that this is not true, appeasement didn't work with South Africa and it has not worked in Israel. I know I tried it ten years ago, things have only got worse.

I appeal to you to join the rising tide of resistance. Join the many millions of us in global civil society who stand together on the side of justice and peace for all humanity. "We shall overcome one day."

Well, first of all Roger… things have changed, and in this case NOT for the better. You talk about standing with “brothers and sisters” against racism, and apartheid and you talk about “global civil society” that is standing for peace and justice for all humanity… Apparently though, you seem to forget the Jewish people when you talk about “all humanity”.

For instance, you mention that Israelis are occupying the “homelands of the indigenous people of Palestine”, well are not the Jewish people indigenous to the area known as Palestine / Israel? And if so, why do you deny the Jewish people their legitimate rights to self-determination in their ancestral homeland? If you do deny that Jews are indigenous to the area known as the Palestine district, where do you think they originated?

But when you talk in support of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Movement (BDS) you should realize that this is a movement that denies the Jewish People their legitimate rights to self determination and instead favors only the rights of the Palestinian people.

You talk of peace and justice but understand that neither the Palestinian polity nor the Jewish polity, accepts what you propose. HOWEVER, Israel (the country you demonize in your letter) is on record offering peace agreements time and time again, only to be rebuffed by the Palestinians that you claim to represent. Did you know that the Palestinian Polity overwhelmingly REJECTS a One State Democratic Solution that guarantees equal rights to Jews? Yep… they do. Don’t take my word for it though – please look at the results of the PSR Poll 47 from the Palestinian Center for Survey and Research in Ramallah.

Look in section 5 regarding The Peace Process. Here are the findings on this:

Talk has recently increased about the inevitable failure of the two state solution and the need to demand the formulation of a solution based on the establishment of one state in all Palestinian areas and Israel, one in which Arabs and Jews enjoy equality. Do you support or oppose this view?

Support: 29%
Oppose: 70%

(Note vote is not in original form due to formatting issues but the question is the exact wording - J.S.)

 And there we have it… 70% of the Palestinian Polity OPPOSES a state where Arabs and Jews enjoy equality. So do you support Democracy here, and if not, what kind of government do you support? Also, if not, how do you square that with your rhetoric?

So really, wouldn’t you say that the program that you support and called for by Palestinian Civil Society one is the one that reflects colonialism and apartheid? I mean, you are telling us to support Palestinian political dreams. Well, here they are in a poll of Palestinians by Palestinians. So how do you square this with your talk about justice for humanity Mr. Waters?

Then you talk about Apartheid. Roger, do you know what Apartheid is? I get that it is the hip word to use when talking about Israel, but, really how accurate is that term? I mean you do know that South Africa was a country that was ruled by a minority government that practiced the most severe forms of segregation and oppression? In South Africa Whites were only 12% of the population, but in Israel, Jews are 73% of the population.

Further… Arabs are not precluded from being part of Israeli society, unlike in South Africa, Arabs can and do vote including having ministers in Government, justices on the Israeli Supreme Court and so forth. Do you know that Omar Barghouti, the head of the movement you support got his Masters at Tel-Aviv University? In South Africa Black and White Students were not allowed to mix.

The failed analogy goes on and on.

Finally Mr. Waters, do you really want to bring Alice Walker into this? I mean, I realize that Ms. Walker is a famous and well received author but did you know that Ms. Walker also supports the insane, and frankly racist writing of David Ickes? Again, don’t take my word for it. How about you read for yourself:

http://alicewalkersgarden.com/2013/02/human-race-get-off-your-knees-i-couldnt-have-put-it-better-myself/

Here is just a little slice of Ms. Walkers feelings:

It’s an amazing book, HUMAN RACE GET OFF YOUR KNEES, and reading it was the ultimate reading adventure.  I felt it was the first time I was able to observe, and mostly imagine and comprehend, the root of the incredible evil that has engulfed our planet.   A lot of it is how shall we say: shocking, beyond belief (but not really, if you don’t get too scared), stunning, profound.  The deconstruction of language is breathtaking, the interrogation of symbols startling.  Magical, in a way.  I kept going:  Oh, so that’s why….  You will too.
The Reptilian space beings whose hybrid (part human, part reptile) descendants make our lives hell in Paradise were blue eyed devils to Malcolm X,  the devil himself to my Christian parents, who never talked about eye color, which I think was not only prudent but wise,  although they seemed clear enough about his sex, and as demons in many other religions, including the non-religion, Buddhism, where the advice is often to invite them in until they go away.  But maybe these were other kinds of demons.  Not the ones controlling not just you, but everything.

Is this the company that you want to keep – people insisting that White’s and Jews are some alien hybrid Reptillian race bent on suppression of the planet?

Roger, I would suggest that before you send out requests like the one you did, you look at the hypocrisy contained in your letter. You claim to be for “human rights and justice for all humanity”. Aren’t we Jews human? OR maybe you subscribe to David Icke’s theories as well?

Please just look at the data for the side that you support. I am not sure how any of what you support measures up to your rhetoric and words to Ms. Keys.

Regards -

Know Thine Enemy

Whether this phrase be the word of G-d or Sun Tzu, it is solid advice.

It is even better when your enemy actually tells you that he is your enemy and tells you that you must beware. So, you may be asking… How does this relate to Israel? Well, earlier this month when speaking to Hizbollah affiliated T.V. (Al – Mayadeen) in Lebanon, Jabril Rajoub, a member of Fatah’s Central Committee had this to say: 

"We the Palestinians are the enemies of Israel….

….."At present, we are satisfied by the popular resistance," Rajoub added, but explained, "We the Palestinians are a source of concern for Israel. We are in this country, and this country is ours. They are our enemy and our battle is against them.”…

…."Until now we have not had nuclear weapons, but in the name of Allah if we had nuclear weapons, we’d be using them”.

And there we have it or do we?

Is this all there is to this commentary? Are the Palestinians really so die-hard that they are the mortal enemies of Israel and can’t live in peace with the Israelis? For a guy like Jibril who signed on to the Geneva Initiative, is this really his stance? I think it is important that we understand what is really going on here.

First of all, we need to determine what made Jibril say this, particularly now. Is it that he merely needed to tell the truth and it needed to burst out or is there more to it? I believe there is. Of course, I actually do believe that Jibril is talking about how he sincerely feels. You don’t make a comment with such far reaching implications like that if you don’t mean it.

That said, I can think of a number of reasons though why he made that comment, and here they are:

1. Domestic Political Considerations: Unity Government talk brokered by Qatar is in the air and as of today, Hamas and Fatah have agreed to form a unity government within three months (for the 873^rd time </snark>). What does this mean? This means that now Fatah is competing with Hamas for who can be the voice of “the resistance” against the Israelis. Remember there are two recent polls out that show the Palestinian Polity supports “armed resistance” as either a first or second choice of tactics against the Israelis. In the latest Pew Poll (cited here)

“Palestinians are more likely to say armed struggle is the best way for their people to achieve statehood (45%) than they are to say negotiations or nonviolent resistance offer the best prospect for the creation of a Palestinian state (15% each). Another 22% volunteer that a combination of these three approaches would be most effective.”

This coupled with a high favorability rating for radicals like Islamic Jihad (58%) is forcing Fatah (who does enjoy a strong position in the polls) to move it’s position to one that is more radical. Hamas and Palestinian radicals are constantly hammering Fatah and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas as collaborators or as “lap dogs” for the Israelis. I think this kind of rhetoric is geared to stem that in part.

2. Regional Considerations: I think another part of this is the unrest that once again is roiling throughout the region with the rise of Islamist parties. Look where Jibril gave this interview. On Hizbollah T.V.  Look at what is happening in Egypt and in Jordan within their parliaments particularly with the rise of Islamist Political movements, where these people who have Peace Treaties with Israel are demanding their governments abrogate their agreements. The P.A. (or P.L.O.) does not want to get caught outside of these movements that are threatening to either force regime change or force regime radicalization in the region.

Of course, don’t forget Syria. Either way Syria is heading for a more radical future. If Assad wins the revolution, he will have his Iranian masters and his Hizbollah allies to thank. If the Palestinians in Syria and Lebanon don’t radicalize with regards to Israel they will be facing a ton of problems in how they are perceived by Beirut and Damascus. IF Assad loses well then, there will be an al-Qaeda state which will then push to radicalize Jordan. What will happen to the Palestinians then if they are seen as being allies with Israel?

Related to this, remember who is hosting Palestinian reconciliation talks: Qatar. Who just decided to bankroll Hamas and Egypt? The Qataris. Oh yes, and who is financing the Syrian Rebellion. Yep, that would be Qatar. They are using their economic power to become a broker in the region. Jibril is seeing an opportunity for the broke Palestinian Authority to “get his foot in the door”. Keep in mind that right now there is strong unrest focused on the P.A. for not paying wages to civil servants.

So, one has to look at what Jibril is saying and understand against the regional backdrop of what is happening.

Does this excuse anything he said? Absolutely not. It is quite obvious that the Palestinian Polity (or at least those who lead the Polity) have zero interest in settling the conflict permanently with the Israelis in a peaceful manner. I think there are those in the P.A. / P.L.O. that would settle for a peaceful Two State Solution, but, only as an interim step towards a Palestinian State from the Mediterranean to the Jordan.

And, given that only 29.3% of the Palestinian polity supports a Democratic One State Solution where Jews and Arabs live together in peace, I think there is very little that currently speaks to a permanent peace solution from the Palestinian side.

Interestingly enough there are reports that Prime Minister Netanyahu spoke to the P.A. regarding the Olmert plan last year in a secret meeting. So there is that…

In the end is Jibril “grandstanding”. Maybe. Still, one would hope that someone in the Palestinian polity would stand up and say “What the…. NO!”. If there has been this reaction I haven’t seen it.

So yes, until there is a denunciation by the Palestinian leadership for this remark AND I can’t see that coming from a unified Fatah, Hamas, PIJ leadership… I think the phrase “Know thine enemy is quite appropriate.

President Obama, America, and the Middle East… Pew Numbers are in.

There is a new Pew Poll out (dated 5/09/13) regarding the Middle East, America, President Obama and attitudes regarding the Peace Process.

Here are some of the highlights…

In Israel – Despite claims by the bigots on the Right and divestment people on the Left, Israel is indeed a friend of the U.S. Our nation (the U.S.) enjoys an 83% favorability rating in the eyes of Israelis. In contrast the U.S. only has a 16% favorability rating amongst Palestinians. This is important to point out since the anti-Semites and Lunatic Fringe inhabitants tend to think that Israelis are lukewarm to America at best, particularly since President Obama has been in the White House.

Of course there are more numbers than this. Despite the deranged bleating of our own (the Zionist) Right Wing a strong majority of Israelis (82%) feel that U.S. foreign policy is either Fair (47%) or Favors Israel (35%), not too bad a rating for an administration who (according to the Lunatic Fringe) supports the Muslim Brotherhood and Jihad against Jews.

But there’s more. According to the poll, President Obama enjoys a 61% Approval rating amongst Israelis with only 36% saying they don’t approve. Here are the Pew Findings:

“Israelis and Palestinians also differ on views of Obama. About six-in-ten (61%) Israelis express confidence in the American president to do the right thing regarding world affairs, up from 49% in 2011. In the Palestinian territories, just 15% have confidence in Obama, while 82% have little or no confidence in him.

In Israel, opinions of Obama are far more positive among Jews than among Arabs. More than six-in-ten (64%) Jews express confidence in the American president, compared with about half (48%) of Arabs.

Secular Jews in Israel are especially positive in their views of Obama. About seven-in-ten (71%) secular Jews have confidence in Obama to do the right thing when it comes to world affairs, compared with 56% of Israeli Jews who describe themselves as traditional, religious or ultra-Orthodox.”

Overall (as the numbers show) it seems that Israelis in general and Israelis Jews in particular understand that President Obama is a strong friend to Israel. But, here was an interesting number that I didn’t expect to see and was heartened by… Strong pluralities of both Israeli Arabs and Israeli Jews feel that the Presidents role in peace negotiations… wait for it… SHOULD BE LARGER.

Now for some other numbers.




On the Peace process things are not quite as rosy. In answer to questions regarding favorability of Fatah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad all three received favorable views but Islamic Jihad was favorably viewed by 56% of the Palestinian Polity. This is hardly encouraging since both Hamas and Islamic Jihad advocate for the elimination of Jews both in the Middle East and in the World.

Further, while 50% (50-38%)  of Israelis think that they can live peacefully with their Palestinian neighbors in a Two State relationship, only 14% of Palestinians think the same way. Moreover a plurality – 45% of Palestinians think that Armed Struggle is the best way to gain a state, they say this more than any other single option and given the favorability of Islamic Jihad – that is seemingly the way that they would go.

As for the settlements, a plurality of Israelis think that they harm Israeli security (42%) while a minority (27%) think that they help. Amongst the Arabs this number is (4% vs. 84% - help to hurt ratio). BUT one thing that they are doing, as can be seen from the numbers is contributing to Israel’s lack of favorable numbers with it’s E.U. trading partners.

 

Generally what we are seeing here is a strong trend of Pro-American favorability and sympathy amongst Israelis towards the U.S. while there is a growing antipathy amongst the Palestinian population. The disturbing numbers are the Palestinian numbers which reflect a turn back towards radical failed means to achieve statehood and a simple non-interest in seeing a compromise solution.

Still, it is heartening to see that BOTH Israelis and Palestinians favor a larger presence by the Obama Administration in particular and by the American government in general. As I have long maintained the current Administration is a strong friend to Israel and I believe now we can see that the Israelis are realizing this as well.

Progressive Except for Palestine (PEP) – A REAL Progressive Response

Posted at the Times of Israel

Amongst those on the Hard Left, there is a term that people use to disparage Liberal, or Progressive Zionists. They call us PEP – Progressive Except for Palestine. These folks on the Hard Left (and the Hard Rightists that pose as Hard Leftists) often like to whine about how we in the Zionist Movement that still support the principles of Labor Zionism, and the founders of the Haganah / Yishuv, claim that this support is disingenuous because we support an Israel with the ability to maintain itself as the National Homeland and State of the Jewish people. No matter that we support a viable Two State Solution, No matter that we support equal civil rights for Arab Citizens of Israel, No matter that we support women’s rights, or the rights of the LGBT community, or the rights of women to pray at the Wall, or the rights of women, children and others to live in a nation and a world free of bigotry and oppression. They maintain only that because we don’t support the rights of the Palestinians to deny the legitimate right of self determination of the Jewish people, that somehow we are raging Right Wingers.

We are seeing this emerging again and again lately, within the extreme Left and stoked by those on the bigoted Right who merely see a number of useful idiots on the Left to further their own anti-Semitic goals (think Jewish Voice for Peace or Tikkun). More and more lately we see it in the hateful and bigoted BDS and Campus Divestment Movements, where straight out anti-Semites and their useful idiot friends try to paint Jewish and Pro-Zionist liberals into a corner of being members of the Conservative Lunatic Fringe and thus discrediting them with younger more liberal leaning students.  

Well I say it is time to strike back (metaphorically).

Last year, here, contributor Michael, wrote an excellent piece that I would like to point out titled: “Progressive Except for Palestine”. The piece itself is a year old but given the increased tempo of the hatred spewed forth by the hard Right and their useful idiots on the Hard Left I think it important to bring back. His piece hits the proverbial “nail on the head” when he says:

“The underlying assumption, of course, is that there is only one acceptable Progressive position on the Arab-Israeli conflict, and they conveniently happen to hold it. The rather unsubtle implication is that the rest of the Progressive movement is a churning heap of reactionary neanderthals in sore need of enlightenment, to bring us more in line with their views on the subject. Which, coincidentally, is The Most Important Political Issue™ of recorded history, characterized by barbarism on a scale humanity has never seen. The Sack of Rome? Peanuts, and probably a Zionist conspiracy avant la lettre to boot…..

….I would imagine that Progressive values include honesty. That, unfortunately, is not something commonly in evidence in said movement. If you want to argue the destruction of the state of Israel, fine. That is, obviously, a morally abhorrent goal, but it's a free country, and people can hold whatever vacuous or cruel views they please. The problem is, of course, that they never admit - except by accident - that this, the end of the Jewish state, is indeed the goal. Call them what they are, anti-Israel, and watch the hackles rise and the outraged sputtering begin. It is, after all, only about the poor Palestinians, groaning under the uniquely heavy Israeli yoke, and their inalienable rights.

Except that it's not. Leaving aside the fact that there could have been a Palestinian state since 1947, had it not been for that awkward lost war, I'd warrant that the people who really sincerely care about their rights in the Western movement concerned with them are in a minority, vastly outnumbered by, to give the baby a name, people who happen to hate Jews. If it were otherwise, they'd expend some time on, say, the intolerable conditions in refugee camps in Lebanon, or even on the continued existence of these camps. But they don't, because there is no injustice worth debating unless it can be blamed on the Jews.” (my emphasis)

And as we have seen lately this last sentence perfectly describes the BDS and Campus Pro-Divestment movement to a “T”.

I think that as Progressives or Liberals we need to go up to these people and ask them exactly what is Progressive about the Palestinian cause. In what way does this cause represent any progressive values? As a proud progressive and supporter of President Obama here in the U.S. and as a supporter of the Israeli Center – Left, I would like to know exactly what is “progressive” about ANYTHING around the Palestinian cause.

I would (and do) ask them the following:

1. Is it “Progressive” to deny the Jewish people their legitimate rights to self determination after over 2,000 years of oppression?

2. Is it “Progressive” to support the creation of a Palestinian State that would be run by Holocaust deniers and those who feel that Jews have no place in their society?

3. Is it “Progressive” to go against the Democracy that is Israel where an overwhelming majority) of over 80% of the population support Zionist goals of maintaining Israel as the Jewish State?

4. Is it “Progressive” to support a polity that voted for Hamas in the last election, a party which has the elimination of the Jewish people encoded in it’s charter, and just hosted notorious anti-Semitic Egyptian cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi (a man who said: “this land has never once been a Jewish land. Palestine is for the Arab Islamic nation.”)?

5. Is it “Progressive” to support a polity that routinely engages in oppression of women, has children that train for “jihad”, and that routinely engages in suppression of journalists?

I ask them if they are aware that in their “pipe dream” that is a One State Solution – a concept of “Palestine” that is similar to America in terms of equal rights and secular democracy that only 29.3% of the Palestinian people support this actual vision and that NEITHER of the two main political parties (Hamas and Fateh who would get over 80% of the popular vote) support that principle.

Usually at this point, these “Pro-Palestinian” activists don’t answer and descend into a “Well… the Israelis do….”, screed. They simply have nothing, nothing to hang their hats on (so to speak).

It goes deeper than that even. Many “Pro-Palestinian” advocates here (the U.S) and in the world in general will talk in lofty terms of an earth that is like the 24^th century utopia portrayed in Star Trek. But they don’t deal in realities and when pressed will say… “Well it’ll be oppressive at first but then it’ll get better or we will fight for it to get better”. When it’s pointed out that the Jewish people will suffer, one hears, “Hey, that’s just what has to happen so that maybe, one day we MIGHT get to a State where there MIGHT be equality for Jews”.  Now, does that sound “progressive” at all?

The fact of the matter is that these people (the BDS supporters and those that support Campus Divestment) are the ones who are generally PEP. They are all for supporting the rights of millions of “oppressed” people here in the U.S., but when it comes to supporting progressive values in the Middle East or anywhere else around the world for that matter, these people are either silent or complicit, particularly when those they support claim to have an “anti-War” or “anti-Imperialist” / anti – U.S. agenda (which I note most of those claiming that mantle are neither “anti-War” nor “anti-Imperialist”).

Now this is not to say that our side does not have its own issues. There is a great deal of hypocrisy and bigotry amongst our Right wing as well. No one is excusing that. BUT those people are a minority in our polity. They support the very worst of our instincts and while they claim to try to take on the mantle of “liberal” their actions and support reflect nothing of a sort.

The difference here is that while yes… we have our bigots and cranks, and we do have to a better job at isolating them, the Palestinian Polity is primarily made up of bigoted, reactionary forces and that no progressive in their right mind should support them.

What real progressives need to do is stand for the legitimate rights of both peoples to their own homelands. They need to insist that both the Israeli AND Palestinian polities (not just the Israeli polity) adhere to basic western constructs of human rights. More than that, they cannot claim to be progressive on one hand and stand against progressive values regarding one half of this conflict.

More than that, progressives have to stop dealing in the “Meta” of this situation and have to more focus on the realities that confront them. To be “Progressive” means to support a realistic outcome that will bring the most “progress” to either side. Will a Palestinian State run by either Fateh or Hamas (the majority will) represent a “progressive” solution? No. It won’t.  Does a Jewish State run by the Hard Right and disenfranchising 25% of it’s population represent a progressive solution? No it doesn’t.

If there is any side that a “Progressive” should take it is with the Zionists who understand that the Jewish People have a legitimate right to self determination in part of the ancestral lands that were once held by the Jewish people. It is the Labor / Liberal / Progressive Zionists that are the real “Progressives” here, not the Hard Right/Left bigots who pretend to be progressive but who really are motivated by hatred of everything Western and anything Jewish.

A Tale of Two Societies

With all the talk surrounding “Divestment”, “Apartheid” and other such flashpoint concepts regarding the Israel / Palestine conflict, perhaps it is time that some real data that reflects the situation is introduced into the conversation.

Proponents of “Divestment” and BDS (Boycott, Sanctions AND Divestment) tell one tale to the people of the West, and in particular students at Universities throughout Europe, Canada, and the United States. They spin a tale of a peaceful people striving for a Western Secular Democracy, and portray that as being the normative political philosophy of the Palestinian Polity. They portray an image of peaceful rural inhabitants that simply want to live next door to their Jewish neighbors in peace and harmony. In their portrayal the Israelis are seen as evil minority of interlopers that want nothing but to oppress these proponents of democracy and justice and establish a state based on Racial Superiority and Apartheid like the now defunct South African regime that ruled with brutality under a racist banner of White Nationalist power.

Towards this end they use language to try to conflate Israel with South Africa so that young people reading about the situation (particularly in the U.S. and Canada) will buy into the myth regarding the similarities between Israel and South Africa and automatically question the alliance of the U.S. and Canada to Israel.

So let’s look at some comparisons between both Israeli and Palestinian society NOT from pundits point of view, or some removed academic view, but from a view of the people actually involved – the Israelis and the Palestinians.

Writing in +972 Magazine (an online journal that reflects a very questioning view of Zionism and Israeli society written btw by Israelis), Mairav Zonszein writes under the bold headline:

Poll: 23% of Jewish Israelis support apartheid, 13% support status quo

“But what is even more telling and interesting about the poll is that while 61 percent support a two-state solution (39 percent oppose), a substantial 23 percent said they support a bi-national state “without giving Palestinians full civil rights” (up substantially from last year’s 13 percent). In other words, this can be understood to mean that 23 percent of Jewish Israelis want to live under an Israeli apartheid regime where Palestinians are institutionally disenfranchised – though the poll does not mention the word apartheid anywhere.

The poll also mentions that 13 percent think the situation should remain as it is (“de facto Israeli control of Palestinians without annexation of Judea and Samaria”), which means maintaining the status quo. The situation we live in right now is de facto a bi-national state (or ‘one state’), in which every person between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean lives under varying degrees of Israeli rule, so I think it is fair to add this 13 percent to the 23 percent - which essentially means that a whopping 36 percent of Jewish Israelis support Israeli control of the West Bank without Palestinian civil rights – what I think can safely be called apartheid.”

Here we have a perfect example of the exaggerations of the Divestment community. First of all… the glaring headline talks about supporting “Apartheid” but even with annexation of the West Bank – this still COULD NOT be called “Apartheid” as unlike South Africa where the White Population was 12% of the nation, Jews would still be a majority (58%) of the Population. See this article: When the “A” word is simply not appropriate for further discussion of this myth.

Still, regardless of this, the fact of the matter is that only 23% of Israelis want this kind of State in the first place. An overwhelming 61% support some form of a Two State solution where the legitimate rights of both the Jewish and Palestinian populations to self governance are respected. Interestingly enough Zonszein simply brushes this majority answer off as unimportant and casts Israeli society along the lines of a nation fully represented by the 23%. 

Now in contrast let’s look at what the Palestinians support as told to pollsters… by Palestinians. This is not reflective opinion of the genocidal maniacs in charge of Hamas who regularly state that they play to “liberate” all of the land of Palestine “from the river to the sea” and who in their charter talk with glee about the genocide of all Jews, while denying the Holocaust and quoting the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. No… this is simply Palestinian Public Opinion.

Remember, we are told by proponents of BDS and Divestment that all the Palestinians really want is a secular Democratic nation where Jews and Palestinians live equally in peace. HOWEVER, as we will see, that is simply not quite accurate (to say the least). According to the latest poll of Palestinian Public Opinion (Dated March 28-30, 2013) in PSR Poll 47, we see some of the following. 

Interestingly enough only 29.3% of the Palestinian Population actually favors a “One State Solution” that has total equality for both Palestinians and Jews.  A far cry from what the activists portray as the political climate in the Palestine Polity.  Further, Ismail Haniyeh, the leader of Hamas movement which supports the complete extermination of the Jewish People, denies that the Holocaust even happened and who regularly quote the infamous anti-Semitic tract the Protocols of the Elders of Zion gets 41% of the popular vote against Fatah President Mahmoud Abbas were elections to be held today. 

And what the activists also forget to mention that rather than being a peaceful, secular people… 94.3% of the population actually considers itself “very or somewhat” religious. BUT let’s go even further into the numbers and I will let this response speak for itself:

A full 40% of the population supports armed intifada AND attacks on Israeli Civilians. 40%. While that is not a majority opinion it certainly is a great many people.

Return to the armed intifada and confrontations
	1) certainly support	9.0%
	2) support	31.4%

And:

Concerning armed attacks against Israeli civilians inside Israel, I….
	1) certainly support	8.1%
	2) support	31.9%

A full 40% of the population supports armed intifada AND attacks on Israeli Civilians. 40%. While that is not a majority opinion it certainly is a great many people.

And further into this discussion, here is how the Palestinians react to their “brutal repression” at the hands of the Israelis. 

In answer to the question about living conditions in the West Bank a majority (55%) of Palestinians say conditions are “so-so” (neutral) to good. That is quite a different picture than these activists like to portray where if you listened to their propaganda, the Palestinian population is being slowly subject to enslavement and genocide by the Israelis. Amazing how that works, isn’t it? 

But will activists who support BDS or Campus Divestment talk about these numbers. Of course not. Will they use realistic figures to discuss anything about the Palestinian polity? Of course not. And this exposes their true agenda. They want Western College students to believe something about Palestinian Society that is simply not true. They don’t want people to see what the Palestinians are really saying or what kind of society that the Palestinian Polity proposes to create. That is simply an inconvenient truth for them to mention. 

I urge that people actually get this information out to their respective constituencies. Don’t lie about what the Palestinian Polity believes. Don’t exaggerate their support for Hamas. Don’t degrade the Palestinians for what they believe. Just present the information in it’s true form. Make sure that when student senate organizations vote for BDS and Divestment that they really know what people in Israel and Palestine actually support. And when activists lie in their presentation of this support, confront them publicly. 

THIS is how in the end, we will be able to end the bigoted attacks by the BDS, Campus Divestment movement. Make them answer the hard questions, and make them do it publicly.