PZ HANDS OUT TWO BIG FUCK YOU'S

YEP... that's right - I have two big FUCK YOU'S to hand out.

First to Turkish PM Reccip Tayyip Erdogan...

You get a Hearty Fuck You for this. First you say this:

“We should be striving to better understand the culture and beliefs of others, but instead we see that people act based on prejudice and exclude others and despise them,”

 Then you follow up with this:

“And that is why it is necessary that we must consider — just like Zionism or anti-Semitism or fascism — Islamophobia as a crime against humanity.”

Zionism is a crime against humanity??? Really??? The philosophy that Jews have a legitimate right to self determination is akin to anti-Semitism or fascism???? WHAT THE... ?????

Hey Reccip.. How about you, take your own fucking advice and "try to better understand the culture and beliefs of others instead of being a dumb piece of shit and lecturing people about understanding while you spout anti-Semitism. What are you a regular poster at Daily Kos? At least there I might understand you having the I.Q. of a fucking Hamburger.... How the do you even dress yourself in the morning, dumbfuck?

Our second FUCK YOU goes to Empress Trudy and the folks over at Israel Thrives.

In one of their perfect little screeds "Empress Trudy" goes off her meds and advocates for mass murder. What? You don't believe me... Well here you go:

I suggest the IDF surround Gaza with a few dozen towed 155mm howitzers to randomly lob one or two unguided and barely aimed HE rounds into Gaza for each mortar or rocket that flies out. Don't even worry about looking for the Gaza rocket shooters. Just fling 1 or 2 $1,000 plain artillery shells into the most densely packed areas in Gaza. In practice the odds of any one person or family being killed or injured are astonishingly low. But that's not the point. The point is FEAR. And fear is what the need to live with. They need to worry. They need to be afraid.

Great fucking idea there Trudy... Lets be just like the murdering pieces of Human Crap in Hamas and Hizbollah and let's lob some artillery into Gaza, what's the worst thing that can happen? The IDF kills a couple of women and children or a few innocent civilians? I mean what are their lives worth anyway? They're only Arabs anyway... Right? (/snark).

And why to the crew at Israel Thrives? After all they didn't write this. Because not even one of them could nut the fuck up and condemn that piece of shit. Just couldn't be bothered.

For all the whining and whinging you people do regarding how evil the Arabs and Muslims are.... You are not one iota better OR even different. You guys just endorsed the murder of civilians so that that the rest of the population can live in fear. Hey idjits... You think the people in Gaza will be cowed by that? You think they are not afraid of the IAF/IDF now? They are, but they don't care. Hamas are fanatics, they just want to kill Israelis. IF they die in some massive shelling attack they believe they get to leave this miserable place and go live with 72 virgins. What kind of strategy is that?

But hey... way to go. You all are complete failures as human beings. 100% complete failures. You... have become what you hate the most... Good going future Jihadis.





 :

BDS GETS CRUSHED AT OXFORD

YEP,.... BDS was absolutely and totally CRUSHED at Oxford University yesterday by a vote of 69-10 with 15 abstentions. Now I am not sure how the BDS folks are going to try to spin this is a victory. Maybe it will be "Well BDS won a huge victory by getting voting on at Oxford and while it barely lost ten brave souls showed what they could do against the Zionist Propaganda Machine" or some such nonsense as that.

As one student put it (paraphrased), "I don't know why this is even being voted on, I mean to affiliate the school with a group that is known to be anti-Semitic...."

And as Eylon Aslan-Levy (the Israeli student that George Galloway walked out on, stating he wouldn't talk to Israelis) stated: 

"Oxford students showed that their commitment to intellectual freedom is unshakeable.

"In rejecting calls for a boycott against Israel by a seven-to-one margin, we demonstrated resoundingly that we want Oxford to continue to cooperate with Israeli academics, trade with Israeli businesses and debate with Israeli debating societies.
"I hope that other British universities will follow Oxford's lead in standing up against divisive attempts to hinder academic cooperation and progress." 

 and over at the Times of Israel they report

According to UJS Campaigns Director Judith Flacks, “It’s encouraging to see that this vote reflects a student body who are willing to discuss the complexities that exist within Israel and do not see boycotting it as a viable option or avenue to discuss the conflict.”

One Oxford student who had campaigned against the motion described the atmosphere on campus as “tense” in the run-up to the vote, which individual college student unions (known as “common rooms”) had two weeks to consider.

Henry Watson, a third-year Philosophy, Politics and Economics student at Magdalen College, said that the motion’s sponsors had initially presented their agenda as “pro-peace, while Israel was against peace, and that this would try and get peace through placing economic pressure on Israel.”

As the motion was discussed by the common rooms, he said, students found out that the motion would also have promoted an academic boycott, that the BDS movement “was against the two-state solution” and that the movement’s founder, Omar Barghouti, had made “racist remarks.”

This crushing defeat though does not end the BDS Movements attempts to get British Universities to support their racist agenda. Again as the TOI reports:

Despite the success at Oxford, it seems likely that a BDS motion will still be on the agenda of the NUS conference next month. Oxford students told The Times of Israel that an identical motion was distributed by the BDS movement to other universities, although it is unclear how many are going to debate it.

One can only hope that this is the first step in further humiliating the morally bankrupt racist BDS movement at British Universities and that there will be many more victories like this in the future.

Chuck Hagel and Fringe Disappointment

Yesterday after much Republican grandstanding, chest thumping and generally wasting everyone's time, Former Senator Chuck Hagel was voted through the Senate as Secretary of Defense. Immediately the fringe blogosphere went nuts.

We saw commentary from the fringe right like this:

And now, due to American Jewish progressive-left ideological blindness, we have the first openly anti-Semitic Secretary of Defense in modern times; a man who favors Iran and Hamas and Hezbollah over the Jews in the Middle East.

or like this:

Hagel is a whore for sale to the highest Arab and Persian bidder. Always has been. He's a narcissist who'd rather be hated than ignored. And of course he's that perfect mix of stupid leftist progressive and right wing Pat Buchanan racist.

and from the Fringe Left we get this:

Hagel now stands in the place of George Marshall, except that where Truman’s Secretary of State warned of fanaticism, now fanaticism has become internal to the US government as well as spreading over the Middle Eastern zones of the empire. Obama, freed from Truman’s burden of facing election, is also free to settle scores, including with his nemesis, Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu, who was dumb enough to have blatantly favored Mitt Romney for President—or was he rewarding the Republican for reaching new depths of servility when Romney pledged that on any matter involving Israel, he would phone Netanyahu and do whatever the PM told him to?

Now, personally I am not a big fan of Chuck Hagel, in this article, I explained that in my opinion Chuck Hagel won't really affect anything with regards to Israel or the Jewish People. My objection to Hagel comes from the fact that the President felt he needed to push a Conservative Republican into a fairly high level post when there were plenty of liberal Democrats (Joe Sestak, Jim Webb, Bob Kerrey, Wesley Clark, Michele Flournoy, to name a few) that were well qualified. As a Democrat, I didn't vote to see a person who had complained about the "Jewish Lobby" or who had made very problematic statements regarding the LGBT community, or who had an overall extremely conservative voting record, placed into high office in a Democratic Presidency.

The fact of the matter (to be blunt) is that the fringes on both sides will be very disappointed. For the lunatic Left, Hagel is not going to commence the bombing of Israel today, tomorrow, or any other day. U.S. policy towards Israel is what it is, and this President has committed us in both words and action to higher levels of security coordination with Israel than ever before. Whether he wants to or not, (and frankly I don't think he cares), Hagel is not going to, and doesn't have the power to change that. That is a policy decision made by the President. The Secretary of Defense doesn't get to make that policy. All he (or she) would get to do is carry out the orders of the President.

If one looks at Hagels record with regards to voting on issues concerning Israel, Hagel's record is certainly not indicative that he will be either the masked avenger on the Jews that the Hard Left wants, or that he will be ready to start shipping arms to Hamas next week like the Lunatic Right Fringe wants. In fact Hagel's voting record on Israel is pretty much standard fare for most American politicians.

Here are the actual facts regarding Sen. Hagels voting record  Some of which include:

• As a United States Senator, Chuck Hagel voted time and time again to provide $37.8 billion dollars of military and security assistance for Israel.
• Hagel cosponsored resolutions with Sen. Dianne Feinstein including "commitment[s] to a true and lasting solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict, based on the establishment of two states, living side by side in peace and security and with recognized borders" and calls on "Hamas... to recognize the State of Israel's right to exist."
• Chuck Hagel voted in favor of the Iran Missile Proliferation Sanctions Act of 1998⁴, the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000⁵, and the Iran Freedom Support Act of 2006⁶. He is skeptical of unilateral sanctions, but supports multilateral sanctions which we have seen, in concert with allies, put tremendeous pressure on Iran

But... that doesn't really matter. The overriding fact is that the Secretary of Defense simply does not make policy regarding our alliances or support for foreign nations or groups. That is the White House in conjunction with State. Hagel as Sec. Def. has to do what Pres. Obama tells him to do, and any policy decisions have to clear the White House. Simple fact.

Frankly, (and again I don't particularly support the choice of Hagel not that it matters now but....) is that Hagel was brought in to do two things and two things only. The first is to stand up for U.S. veterans and their rights. Hagel has done a good job of that throughout his career. The second is that the Pentagon is going to be and frankly needs to be cut to help with budget concerns. Hagel is a reasonable choice for that job. Hagel is not the Secretary of Defense for Israel, nor is he the Sec. Def. for only the Jewish People. Some people really need to understand that.Hagel IS  the Sec. Def. of all American People and as such he is responsible to the entire nation, not just one part of it.

OH and is Hagel the "worstest, most ebilz, Sec. of State ever for Israel, I think not.

How about Harry S. Truman's Sec. Def. James Forrestal who urged President to Truman to reject Partition in 1947 because it might "infuriate" the Arabs and then saying that Jews were too influential in pressing the American Gov't. Remind me again how that stopped the U.S. from voting for Partition.

Or what about Casper Weinberger of President Reagan's admin. You know, the REPUBLICAN administration where the President actually went to present honors on German SS unit graves, that administration. Here is a little something about Weinberger:

In contrast to other members of the Reagan cabinet known for their sympathy toward the Jewish state, including Secretary of State George Shultz and the president himself, Weinberger developed a reputation not only for opposing Israel’s interests directly but for seeking to prevent any action, including counter-terrorist operations, that might upset Arab allies of the United States (vb1 emphasis).  Until the Iran-Contra scandal broke in 1986, Weinberger was perhaps best known for orchestrating the sale of AWACS jets – the highly advanced airborne surveillance, command, and control system built by Boeing – to Saudi Arabia. Opposed by Israel and much of the American Jewish community, the Saudi AWACS deal generated enormous controversy.

So, I am not sure how we can really take the fringe seriously on either side as to their objections regarding Hagel. 

Either way, he was not my pick but now that he is in office, I say we judge him by what he actually does, NOT by what we think he may or may not do. Either way, the fanatics are going to be bummed out because their shrill cries (in support of or against) that he will be bombing Israel or sending gift baskets to open up our friendship with Hamas and Hizbollah simply won't come true and really have no basis in fact. As I said previously, Hagel's job is to watch over the U.S. Military in time when we will be paring it down and have a great deal of soldiers coming home from war.

How he does that will tell us what kind of American Secretary of Defense he will be.

Why the Two State Solution is the ONLY solution

Or better titled... when the "CW" (Conventional Wisdom) gets it completely wrong.

Everyone is spouting that the Two State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is either dead or dying, but frankly I see it getting stronger and stronger. I honestly do. I just can't see how a One State Solution can ever happen. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't see a Two State Solution along any of the lines that have been previously discussed, NOR do I see a Two State Solution along the lines that either side's hard Rightist wings would find acceptable, BUT I do think it is the only realistic possible outcome.

We keep hearing how Israeli annexation is dooming the Two State Solution. We keep hearing how Hamas' rocket fire and insistence on destroying Israel is dooming the Two State Solution but all of it, and I mean all of it is complete nonsense (or as I learned in Hebrew - "Shtuyoat" - stupidity). Why?

Well let's look at the arguments and take them out to their logical conclusions. First let's take the argument that Israeli settlements stand in the way of the Two State Solutions. Ok... I can see why someone would say that. I mean Israeli settlements are popping up in parts of the West Bank that are fairly remote and even though these settlements are technically illegal and the Government looks the other way, they are also fairly non-sustainable. It is pretty obvious that these settlements are meant to create "facts on the ground" and make sure that there is no acceptable (to the Palestinians) way to reach a Two State Solution. SO... let's say that these settlements are allowed to continue to pop up here and there creating little "facts on the ground" at some point Israel will be faced with a choice - annex the West Bank or annex the territory just around those settlements... OR turn that territory over to the Palestinians and let the settlers fend for themselves (which is something NO Jewish P.M. could ever, ever do).

IF Israel annexes the West Bank they run into a major problem. Demographics. All of a sudden Israel inherits approx. 2.6 million Palestinians. That is a lot of Palestinians for Israel to absorb as citizens. That would place considerable strain on social services not too mention the IDF who would now have to constantly patrol areas of the country that had absolute hostility to the central government. Oh, and not too mention that these new citizens would vote and soon enough would comprise part of an Arab majority inside of Israels borders. That would be in effect the end of Israel as we know it.

So what do those who favor annexation advocate... well there are three options that they support. These are:

1. Annexing the West Bank and keeping the Arabs as "not quite citizens". In other words, disenfranchising around 22% of the population of the State. I would think the downside of this is obvious. It would immediately cause either revolution or intense civil unrest. Oh and I can't imagine any other nation supporting Israel in this venture. Not even the U.S. would support this. In this case Israel's internal budget which is already stressed would be further pushed by having to support continued military operations throughout Palestinian Populated areas for an indefinite amount of time. It would become simply unsustainable.

And then let's look at the effect on morale in the IDF. Israel is a fairly progressive society in certain ways. For the IDF to take on the role of Oppressors to 22% of their nation, that would completely destroy Israeli secular society and turn the country into something far, far worse. The IDF would cease to be a defensive force and would transform into a police force and Israel into a police State, because I cannot imagine that the majority of Israeli Arabs would put up with this in their nation for one moment.

2. Another option is the Bennett Plan, where Israel Annexes Area C and maintains Areas A & B as autonomous provinces. Again, where will Israel get the international support for something like this? How will it budget for this? What role will the IDF take in maintaining calm should the PA simply say, "Screw you - handle security yourselves". Remember, the world voted to recognize Palestine as a State, and while the World community may be inept in many cases becoming a State like North Korea (but without a large nation to support it, because no way the U.S. goes a long with this) is not something that is realistic for Israel to do.

The problem with the Bennett plan (aside from the obvious denials of Palestinian Right to Self Determination) simply is unworkable. The Palestinians would never accept this and would actively contest it. Unless Israel would be willing to "go Kahane" on the Arabs (which would then start a major regional war) there is no way that the Israelis could permanently maintain this situation. Sure the status quo is holding but, only because the Palestinians in the West Bank have chosen non violent resistance (by and large but not in every case). What happens when they go into full revolt? And what happens when that is seen as justified by the World community including both the U.S. and E.U.

3. Of course the third option is to simply ethnically cleanse the Arab Population from the West Bank. That would certainly solve a couple of the problems of maintaining an Occupation. Of course, perhaps those proponents of this solution should ask the Serbs how that worked for them. Not too mention that the Israelis would face full on revolt from 20% of it's population along with continued attacks from pretty much every surrounding Arab Nation. Hell, if they tried that even the E.U. would probably send forces or at least major support to the Arabs.

And what of those morons who say... "Well Israel can go it alone".... Really? You think Israel can stand against the rest of the world including the U.S. and E.U. Some moron once said "Well let's tell the Americans we are on our own and that we will get other allies". Who the fuck are they going to get? The Russians? The Russians are in bed with everyone but the Israelis. The Chinese? The Chinese are sucking at the Arab Teat for the worlds remaining Oil Supplies. Are they seriously maintaining that Israel could actually go "North Korea" (who is propped up only through the largesse of they Chinese).

So there really is no other option for Israel - IF Israel actually wants to survive.

At the same time... The Palestinians have absolutely ZERO options if they want a Single State. By going to the U.N. all they did was codify the Two State Solution. The Russians and Chinese may dislike Israel but they are not going to actively work to help radical jihadists and Mullahs in Iran realize their dream of wiping out a recognized State. PLUS the U.S. and Western Europeans would never allow it.

As for those on the Israeli and Palestinian Left that advocate the "Palestinian One State Solution". NO ONE on their side, but, NO ONE takes them seriously. In the latest poll of Palestinians only 22% supported a One State Solution where Jews and Arabs lived side by side. I mean, nobody, not Israelis not Palestinians wants a One State Solution. It is freakin' ridiculous that this theory is even given a second thought.

At some point, everyone is going to come to a reason that Israelis and Palestinians simply can't live in the same nation under a One State flag. Both sides (rightly so) want their own "homelands". Of course I support the fact that Jews should be able to live in Palestine, and that Arabs should be able to live in Israel as full and equal citizens with the caveat that people remember that Israel is the National Homeland and State of the Jewish People, and Palestine would be the State and National Homeland of the Palestinian People.

There simply is no other way the situation can continue to exist without either a major revolution or war breaking out there. At some point the "dam will burst" and when it does, there won't be much left to piece together. So whether it through Israeli Unilateralism (because we already have the theoretical establishment of Palestine through Palestinian unilateralism), or a world effort to quell violence in the region this is what is going to happen. And even if war does breakout, this is what will be imposed whether both sides like it or not because neither side can take on the West, or the combined efforts of the Russians and Chinese. And at some point the major players WILL take care to see a solution imposed on the region.

I am just telling you what I think is real and what will play out in macro terms. If you see it playing out differently, please let me know how you see that. I would be curious to see what others think.

A Truly WTF??? Moment....

Today I was looking at the Times of Israel and here was the Headline that just greeted me:

‘Hamas agrees to Palestinian state on ’67 lines’

Hamas is prepared to accept a Palestinian state demarcated by the pre-1967 lines, with Jerusalem as its capital and without any Jewish settlements within its borders, an official in Hamas’s political bureau said on Monday, noting that the sole difference in outlook between his organization and Fatah on the matter concerns recognition of Israel...

...But Abu-Marzouq denied claims that Hamas had decided to forgo military confrontation with Israel.

“Claiming that Hamas abandoned the resistance for a long period of time is strange. How can that be argued, when Hamas waged three wars in five years and everything in between was periods of preparation?” he said.

So, let's see if I have this right... Hamas accepts that there will be a Palestinian State in the 1967 Lines of the West Bank, with ALL of East Jerusalem as it's capital. Meanwhile, they will not accept Israel as "legitimate", will continue with violence, and in their graciousness (/snark) will allow Fateh to rule the area.

Of course their Western Allies and drooling Useful Idiots will of course jump on this to say: :"HEY, lookie here, Hamas wants Peace with Israel, I mean they just said they accept a Palestinian State within the 1967 Lines of the West Bank..I mean how can they argue against that???"

Well there are a few ways one can argue against that. The first is that I read this as saying Hamas accepts ONE State from the Green Line to the Med. as a Palestinian State run by Fateh. BUT, they don't accept Israel.

Well then, what do they think should happen with the rest of the land? Well, if I had to guess, I would guess that since they don't accept Israel as "legitimate" they would probably push for ANOTHER Palestinian State inside the "Green Line".And who would run this State.... Why probably Hamas itself.

And since Hamas has declined to forgo military confrontation with Israel (as their rocket from Ashkelon last night showed - as well as Abu-Marzouq's comment about taking the time "in-between" wars to use as "periods of preparation") why in the world would Israel take anything that Hamas says about "accepting a State within the 1967 Borders" as a serious attempt to make peace. I mean seriously, who would actually advocate for Israel to drop back to the 1967 borders just so Hamas doesn't have to make an effort to take that land. I didn't realize that Israel's job was to make it easier for Hamas to destroy it.

In the end, what Hamas is proposing is simple... Israel retreat from the Territories and then the Arabs can pick up where they left off on June 4th 1967, in trying to destroy Israel. They are not proposing anything else and anyone who thinks they are, is either dumber than a bag of rocks OR is seriously high out of their minds.

Oh and now they have Palestinian Popular opinion to back them up. Here are some findings from a recent Poll taken of Palestinian Public Opinion

• Haniyeh (Hamas) defeats Abbas (Fatah) in a presidential election by 48% to 45%, but Barghouti (in Israeli Jail and not likely to get out) wins against Haniyeh, 51% to 42%.
• In a three way presidential elections, Haniyeh receives 39%, Marwan Barghouti 29%, and Abbas 27%.
• In a parliamentary election, Fateh wins 36% and Hamas 35% of the voters.
• To force Israel to withdraw from the Palestinian state, the largest percentage (41%) believes that armed attacks on Israeli army and settlers would be the best way but 24% believe the best way is to return to negotiations.
• 60% believe that Hamas’ way is the best way to end Israeli occupation while only 28% believe Abbas’ is the best way.

• Concerning armed attacks against Israeli civilians inside Israel, I….
  	1) certainly support	15.5%
  	2) support	35.3%

   

And there we have it... NOW one important thing to note regarding the last comment is that this number is great because of Gaza. In the West Bank the poll showed only 40% (right, ONLY.....) supported attacks against Israeli citizens.

So given all of this, Hamas' offer means absolutely nothing. Zero... Nada... Effes... Zilch. But it does crystalize for Israelis exactly what they are up against when it comes to the Palestinian Polity, AND in my opinion makes for perfect reasoning as to why there really needs to be a Two or Three State Solution.

When the "A" Word is Simply NOT Appropriate

Amongst critics of Israel as of late, there has been a stepped up effort to label Israel as an "Apartheid State". Now this meme has been circulating around the Far-Left for a while and now it has been picked up by the Rightist Haters as well in their unholy alliance with the leftist fringe. It has become yet another distortion in the anti-Semitic quiver of weapons against Israel and by extension the Jewish people.

According to the dictionary "Apartheid" means:

1: racial segregation; specifically : a former policy of segregation and political and economic discrimination against non-European groups in the Republic of South Africa

2: separation, segregation <cultural apartheid> <gender apartheid>

But it means much more than just "racial segregation" or "separation". Apartheid has come to be associated specifically with the brutal segregation of races that took place in South Africa. It has gone beyond being a just a word and has become a term associated with a criminal regime that created racial separation on the perceived basis of racial superiority. Nothing more, nothing less. MOREOVER, the word came to symbolize an oppressive minority population holding a vast majority population in thrall and using that population as close to slave labor. And that is the image that those who would de-legitimize Israel want to promote concerning not just Israel but of Jews in general.

And how best to promote this meme... by simply repeating it over and over again (btw, we see this same defamation on the other side of the political spectrum by Republicans and those suffering from Obama Derangement Syndrome but, this article / diary is not about that). But also by cherry picking quotes from Israeli and Jewish leaders / writers and carrying them completely out of context.

But this is the problem with using the "A" word. It is such a charged word that it renders any discussion of the issue meaningless. It reduces the discussion to a simplistic, cartoon like version of two children saying "Yes, You Are" and "No, I'm Not -  you are". In general using the term "Apartheid" to describe the Arab-Israeli or Israeli-Palestinian conflict shows either an amazing ignorance of the situation or an incredibly deceptive, Machiavellian streak in one's political life.

NOW... before anyone goes on to talk about how the Israelis use the term when talking about themselves that is completely a contextual thing. Just as some Israelis will call other Israelis "Nazi's", and they do, there is a whole other context where people talking about themselves will say harsher things to make a point. That, though, is another topic regarding language. BUT these Israelis in the Jewish establishment that do use the "A" word use it in a far different manner than those (both Jewish and non-Jewish) do.

Even then I think it important NOT to use that term because the situation in the Territories between Jews and Palestinians (and even should Israel annex the Territories) is very different from the racially charged premise of South Africa and it's relations of Whites and Blacks. First let's look at these differences:

1. In South Africa Whites were 12% of the total population. In Israel proper Jews (the supposed minority group) are approx. 76% of the population. Even with the Annexation of the West Bank, Jews would still be 55% of the population in Israel.

2. In South Africa, Blacks were not allowed any integration whatsoever with their fellow South African White citizens. Pools, Education, drinking fountains, even bathrooms were completely segregated. Blacks had no place in South African political life and were not even allowed a vote. On the other hand, in Israel, Arabs and Jews attend school together (in mixed neighborhoods), Israeli Arabs are not segregated at restaurants or for medical care or in public beaches. Arabs vote and participate in the Israeli government and have three parties in the Knesset that represent their interests. In fact, when Israel annexed Jerusalem, Arabs were offered the opportunity to become full Israeli citizens and they refused. I don't think during Apartheid that Blacks were ever offered that opportunity.

3. Israel was not created on a basis of racial superiority nor is the idea of a Jewish Homeland or State based in an ideology of superiority. The Palestinians that live in Israel are not seen as "sub-human" by law despite what some of the nuttier Rightists spout. Israel was formed as a recognition of the need of the Jewish people after being scattered to the "four corners of the Earth", to be able to express their legitimate right to self determination. AND it was recognized that the Jewish People should have this homeland in part of their ancestral lands in the Middle East.

I cannot imagine that the Dutch or British colonists heading for South Africa felt that they were actually returning to their "roots". I mean, last I checked White people were not really from anywhere near there. And while they had their reasons for going there in the first place their treatment of the black population there was solely based on racial memes. I cannot imagine that the South African Declaration of Statehood had these words in them:

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.

From the Israeli Declaration of Establishment of State.

But let's take the "worst case scenario" and assume that something like the Bennett plan (HaBayit HaYehudi) or the Rightists in Likud gets their way and Israel decides to annex the Occupied Territories. That still could not be considered "Apartheid. One may disagree with it and find it morally wrong (as I do). One would have a good case arguing that the disenfranchisement  of a sector of the population would destroy the very notion of "Jewish Democracy", and be a clear violation of human rights and they would get no argument from me whatsoever. BUT.. It would still not be apartheid. For instance, under the Bennett Plan (a plan that I vehemently stand against), the Palestinian population in Area C and Jerusalem would be granted full Israeli citizenship whether they chose to exercise it or not. Area's A & B would be under autonomous control of the Population and would not have any local Israeli presence (though this does resemble the concept of "Bantustans" that the South African Apartheid regime enacted).

Even the reasoning behind such extreme measures does not measure up to the term. While I would never and will never agree that these are necessary steps, the fact of the matter is that Zionism is simply not about the subjugation of other peoples. It is about the necessity of the Jewish people to have a State and Homeland. I would further argue that the measures for forced security that the Bennett Plan or what Likud-Betainu offer are severely oppressive and in my mind pose a threat to the integrity of the State, they are not based on some notion that Jews as people are superior and that Arabs should not have rights (as neither plan takes away rights of Arab Israelis) despite what a small minority in both of those groups believe.

Still, the Apartheid government of South Africa never offered any of the Black Population full citizenship or equal citizenship as it did to White South Africans.

The situations and charged verbiage of "Apartheid" simply don't match up to the reality of the situation no matter what anyone wants to call it. Thus, the term "Apartheid" when used here should be completely and totally rejected for the canard that it is. It simply is inapplicable to the situation.

Moreover, I would say that the majority of the opposition to Israel's existence IS based on anti-Semitism and a feeling that Jews as a people are intrinsically inferior. I say this from both reading AND from personal experience. Certainly there are a few deluded individuals who think that they can create a society based on total equality in an Arab run polity in Palestine however, there simply is no background nor historical precedence to back this idea up.

 More disturbing is this poll from the Palestine Research Center which finds only 27% of Palestinians support a One State solution where Jews and Arabs would be equal, where 51% of respondents support attacks on Israeli civilians inside of the "Green Line" and where if elections were held today Hamas (an organization that has as part of it's charter that Israel should be destroyed and all Jews should be hunted down and killed) would win.

So, honestly, unlike Whites in South Africa, Jews in Israel DO face an existential threat to their nation and very lives.

I do want to make clear though that despite my rejection of the use of the term "Apartheid" this does NOT mean that I think the situation as it exists is either tenable nor moral. Further, I believe that disenfranchisement of a large portion of the population of a nation IS oppression and unjust. I think that it destroys the very fabric of the concept of Israel (or at least what Israel's founders envisioned), and I think it goes a ways towards destroying the nation of Israel itself.

And to the critics of this... I don't care what the Arabs do or don't do in their own societies. I am not one of them, that is for them to reform or not - it's up to them not me. What I do care about is how we as Jewish people deal with ourselves and our situation. THAT is my concern. I think that becoming like our enemies simply defeats the purpose of what I believe and that belief is that we need to be the best we can be as both a society and as individuals. I do not want to treat others as I would not want to be treated. I want to strive for the nation that Ben-Gurion envisioned when he sought a nation that would be "a light unto all nations".

Use of the term "Apartheid" for the Israeli Palestinian situation is simply intellectual laziness and exposes complete weakness in persons argument. I believe that it is important that we fight the "Apartheid meme" with all of our abilities and with logic and reason. Even when those who use it obviously are not drawing parallels to South Africa, it is important that we simply but forthrightly stand up against that meme. It is simply wrong to use that term and for this situation highly inappropriate.

New Elections for Israel?

As the coalition building process wears on, a few things become obvious.

The first is that Tzipi Livni and HaTanuah have effectively counted themselves out of Israeli politics should there ever be new elections. Her racing to join Likud in coalition in return for the Justice Ministry (and the ceremonial Head of Negotiations with Palestinians team) plus the Environmental Portfolio AND the Head of the Knesset House Committee and willingness to toss away all of her pre-election promises renders her irrelevant.

Sure, she could have argued that at least moderate forces got those ministries (particularly Justice and the Environment) which might otherwise fall into the hands of Rightist "hacks" determined to follow Likud's hoped for economic policy patterned on Republican Randian Economics, but, that is easily disputed as seen by Likud-Betainu's protests about her impinging on "Rightist Legislation" (to quote Likud MK Ofir Akunis). 
Not too mention that her party is already struggling due to communication issues within the party:

During the meeting, Livni told those present that contrary to reports in the media, she has not yet decided Hatnuah's second minister. She also told the MKs that she and Netanyahu had not yet agreed on which committee would be given to her faction or which Knesset member would be its chairperson. 

Not all of Hatnuah’s MKs were pleased with Livni’s actions in signing the coalition agreement.

 

“Livni didn’t tell the Knesset members in advance that she had reached agreements with Netanyahu," a party official said, "and she told the media she had signed before the members knew about it.  

“The way Amram Mitzna was treated won’t go by quietly, either," he added. "The fact that Amir Peretz behaves in this party as if it were his own, making Livni break an earlier agreement she had with Mitzna, is wrong. Mitzna should be the next minister from the party.” As soon as the meeting was over, Livni held a private meeting with Mitzna on the matter.

 The next thing we know is that either to join the government, either Yesh Atid or Habayit HaYehudi (particularly HaBayit HaYehudi) is going to have radically change at least part of their core platform principle. For instance, Jewish Home is committed to Annexing Area C of the West Bank and then keeping Areas A & B, as "Autonomous areas" linked through new high speed roads. Of course, while this goes along great with the new Rightist Likud it doesn't jive with the Prime Ministers very public statement reiterating his Bar-Ilan speech, which commits him to Two States, nor does it fit with the new coalition agreement that PM Netanyahu signed with HaTanuah and Tzipi Livni. As Naftali Bennett (Head of HaBayit HaYehudi) said:

"We've come to serve the nation in any fashion, from the coalition or the opposition," Bennett told a meeting of his party's convention in Jerusalem on Wednesday. "The only question is what this government's path will be: buying political time, or truly coping with fundamental problems? If the new government is interested in tackling the nation of Israel's real problems, we're in. But if the goal is to buy more time, we won't be. And that's not a disaster."

Regarding Livni, he said that he's "not interested" in Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas or any of the other PA officials who might negotiate with her. "What interests me is the nation of Israel - not Abu Mazen [Abbas], Abu Ala [Ahmed Qureia] or who knows who else will sit with Livni," he said. "They're not interesting. We're at a historic crossroads, and the ball is in the prime minister's court: Will we hold onto the Land of Israel and Jerusalem, or will we entrust the negotiations to someone who has already offered to divide the city of Jerusalem and conceded [the West Bank settlement bloc of Ariel?"

But also both parties Yesh Atid AND Jewish Home are even at odds with their own proposals on how to handle the Occupation and are only united in a desire to see some form of National Service happen. Of course then this precludes the joining of Shas and UTJ, unless Likud can work out some kind of compromise.

Now Likud has tried and drafted up a new compromise plan. However, BOTH Yesh Atid and Habayit HaYehudi have rejected that plan stating:

The plan, proposed by the head of Netanyahu's National Economic Council, Prof. Eugene Kandel, sets a goal of drafting 60 percent of Haredi (ultra-Orthodox ) men aged 18 to 24 within five years. But critics say it lacks teeth.

Yesh Atid and Habayit Hayehudi had previously announced that they oppose the plan, and on Wednesday they were joined by Kadima. At a meeting with Netanyahu, Kadima chairman Shaul Mofaz said he couldn't join a government whose proposal on the Haredi draft issue was akin to the one over which he quit Netanyahu's second government last summer.

Moreover, most of Hatnuah - the one party with which Netanyahu has so far signed a coalition agreement - is also expected to oppose the plan.

Thus if all these parties stand firm, Netanyahu will have trouble forming a coalition without agreeing to significantly tougher measures to get Haredi men into the army. Currently, 33 MKs - from Yesh Atid, Habayit Hayehudi and Kadima - have broadly agreed on the outlines of a much tougher plan than Kandel's. The Kandel plan is so far supported only by Likud-Yisrael Beiteinu's 31 MKs.

Well then, what's on the horizon? Right now the Likud Betainu coalition has 37 MK's. 31 from Likud-Betainu and 6 from HaTanuah. Even with both Haredi parties the best they can get to is 55 (11 from Shas and 7 from UTJ). To get there they would need either Labor, Yesh Atid, HaBayit HaYehudi, Meretz OR the Arab Parties to join the coalition. One can pretty much count out the Arab Parties and Meretz. That leaves Labor. There is no way that this would be a workable coalition longer than 6 months. There are just too many differences between the players.

Oh, and here is one other thing. The Knesset Channel just did a poll of the Israeli electorate. Apparently IF there were new elections (still an unlikely possibility). Yesh Atid  would become the new leading party with 30 seats, Likud would drop to 22 Seats, HaBayit HaYehudi would go up to 15 seats, and Labor would drop to 13 seats. G-d only knows what would happen to HaTanuah... I would bet their people go to Yesh Atid along with Mofaz' two seats.

Of course there would still be a mess in this case as well but now it would be on Yair Lapid to try to form a coalition and not Benjamin Netanyahu. Given Lapid's ego (remember, he stated that HE would be Prime Minister within 18 months), and political ambitions the news of this poll has to make him and Naftali Bennett sit up and take notice.

Will there be new elections? No one knows, but, whatever happens we are going to see some defining moments for the Israeli polity in the next few months.