13 thoughts on “Kerry’s Speech: America Lost in Two-State Ether, Israel Spied on Nations Supporting UN Vote – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
task-attention.png
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.
 

  1. Sad. That adults continue to try to invoke tribal understandings of so many years ago while watching brothers, Semites and Hamites, try to destroy one another thousands of years later over claims to land. Shame!

  2. After reading Prime Minster Rabin’s speech from October, 1995 a decade ago I never really believed in any two state solution unless the UN forced it upon Israel. And that’s too late now.

    The last paragraph says it all – “We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state,”

    I doubt the Labour Party was alone in this policy goal.

    http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/mfa-archive/1995/pages/pm rabin in knesset- ratification of interim agree.aspx

    Quote:
    “We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

    We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority. The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

  3. @Richard, I actually agree with most of your analysis here. Except for one question: Do you really think that a secular bi-national democratic state would satisfy the national aspirations of the PALESTINIANS? Granted, they would be given full citizens rights, but would it truly satisfy their aspirations for self-determination, having to share power with the Jews?

    I actually agree with what a Haaretz editor whispered to Condi Rice several years back- Israel needs to be “raped” into a two-state solution. Meaning forcefully coerced, of course. Perhaps it is already too late

  4. “All this reminds me of the Russian campaign to demolish Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.”

    So you believe the idea that it was the Russians who undermined Clinton’s campaign. That’s somewhat surprising. There’s no proof, and it was all doable without putting up the Russians as the current hate object. Indeed, Putin’s latest coup suggests he doesn’t need conspiratorial attacks.

  5. “No one has ever accused the U.S. of buying a Security Council vote as Israel has” – Ammmm… the US has a VETO vote.

    And why is it OK for the US to spy on everyone, including its own citizens but not for Israel or Russia?
    Is it b/c “the FORCE is with you”? With Trump even that can’t be argued any more.

    An action can’t be justified just because one thinks it is done for the right reason. Much of the evil in the world is done under that umbrella. You can ask any ISIS fighter and they will tell you.

    So, is spying OK or not?

    1. @ Akiva Ben Simon: why is it that the hasbara crowd assumes I don’t criticize, even denounce the same actions of the US govt which I denounce of the Israeli govt?? Do a short Google search here to discover I’ve supported Manning & Snowden, & all US whistle-blowers. I’ve denounced violations of personal privacy wherever it happens. Including violations of constitutional rights.

      My regret is that Israel has virtually no figures like this, confirming it is not a democratic society like the US or others which at least in theory have these guarantees.

        1. @ Akiva Ben Simon: Yes, if a nation wants to go to war and drag half the world with it, I’m all in favor of spying. That goes beyond my “world view” whatever that means. I tend to disapprove of disastrous wars and those who try to start them.

          As for what I approve or disapprove: I have no problem with gay rights activists exposing the hypocrisy of homphobes like Bennett. And call me hopelessly out of date, but I believe that a couple that wishes to get married should have that right without idiots and thugs threatening them. You apparently were never civilized by your mother to accord other human being dignity and respect. Gay people were something less than human, as were Jews who married Muslims.

          You are done in this thread. If you want to show yourself to be a total asshole, do it in another thread. Or better yet, another site.

          I disapprove of most spying generally, but I disapprove less of nations spying on other nations. What I disapprove of most strongly is powerful spy agencies spying on regular citizens.

          Do not publish more than three comments here in any 24 hour period. If you have not read the comment rules, read them now and follow them carefully.

      1. Ever heard about Uri Avnery, Raviv Druker or Yoav Itzchak? Just to name a few journalists who exposed multiple cases of corruption at the heighest levels, leading to the resignation of at least one prime minister, and the investigation of others? how did they get their information if not from whisle blowers?
        Israel has many problems. Lack of whistle blowers or effective journalism are not among them.
        And by the way, I wonder what happened to the comment I published in another thread in response to your demansa from me.

        1. @ Amico: Uri Avnery hasn’t exposed corruption in 40 or 50 years since his days as an editor & journalist. Yoav Yitzhak is a good journalist as is Drucker. But they aren’t whistleblowers. They’re journalists. I wasn’t arguing that Israel doesn’t have good journalists. It does have some. But what it doesn’t have is whistleblowers like Vanunu or Snowden or Manning. Remember Anat Kamm? She was a whistleblower who spent time in jail for leaking documents. There is no tradition or protection for whistleblowers in Israel because Israel is not a democracy.

          Do not respond to this comment. Move on to another thread.

    2. Australia could thus far hide behind the US to detract attention from its shameful stance on the Palestinian conflict. But its present PM, Malcolm Turnbull, deemed it necessary to come out in the open by declaring that Australia,, if it had been eligible to vote on the recent UNSC Resolution, would not have supported it. I doubt whether even its other traditional comrades in arms in the UN as far as Israel is concerned , the Marshall Islands (pop. 53,158), Palau (21,000) and Nauru (pop 10,084) would have cared to follow it in this bit of political exhibitionism.

      Australia’s Foreign minister, Julie Bishop, said that Australia has “consistently not supported one-sided resolutions targeting Israel” and Malcolm Turnbull called the vote “deeply unsettling” (“unsettling” for what exactly?). A former Liberal cabinet minister, Eric Abetz, surmised that the New Zealand vote had to do with a campaign to get former PM Helen Clark as the next Secretary General of the UN and spoke about pragmatism trumping principle. Apparently the news that the UN General Assembly already voted Antonio Guterres to be Ban Ki-Moon’s successor on the 13th of October hasn’t got to him yet.

      So this is ludicrous and turning the matter on its head.

      It is of course Australia’s stance that has nothing to do with principle and is in fact based on petty political pragmatism. The main factor here is the desire to keep the powerful pro-Israel lobby, which is in fact in its local form a pro-settler lobby, on side.

      It is true that Malcolm Turnbull surmised that he might be Jewish based on what his mother told him (he claims that he has never bothered to really find out) and that he represents a district with the largest Jewish population of Sydney (Wentworth). But that cannot be the whole story seeing that his stance is not very different from that of Labor predecessors such as Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard.

      Seeing that the Australian Jewish population represents less than half a percent of the total population it cannot be its electoral pull that explains Australia’s stance either – even though the Jewish vote might be decisive for one or two seats.

      Opinion among the Australian electorate in general doesn’t provide an explanation either. The Sydney Morning Herald, after reviewing the trend in polls on Israel and Palestine over time wrote a number of years ago that “The overwhelming trend shows a sharp swing since the 1980s against Israel’s image and actions among ordinary Australians. The fact of the current disjunction between government policy and public attitudes on the Israel-Palestine issue receives almost no publicity, … But it is becoming increasingly difficult to hide.”

      http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/political-stance-on-palestine-is-out-of-step-with-public-opinion-20120212-1szkn.html

      So one can only conclude that the real explanation lies with the pro-Israel lobby which has obviously been extremely effective in Australia. Former Foreign Minister Bob Carr complained about

      “ the “pro-Israel lobby in Melbourne”, saying it wielded “extraordinary influence” on Australia’s policy during his time in Julia Gillard’s cabinet….”I found it very frustrating that we couldn’t issue, for example, a routine expression of concern about the spread of Israeli settlements on the West Bank – great blocks of housing for Israeli citizens going up on land that everyone regards as part of the future Palestinian state if there is to be a two-state solution,” he said.

      Carr wrote about this in his book The Diary of a Foreign Minister.

      “What I’ve done is to spell out how the extremely conservative instincts of the pro-Israel lobby in Melbourne was (sic) exercised through the then-prime minister’s office.”

      The situation has obviously not improved with the present incumbent of that office.

  6. Australia could thus far hide behind the US to detract attention from its shameful stance on the Palestinian conflict. But its present PM, Malcolm Turnbull, deemed it necessary to come out in the open by declaring that Australia, if it had been eligible to vote on the recent UNSC Resolution, would not have supported it. I doubt whether even its other traditional comrades in arms in the UN as far as Israel is concerned , the Marshall Islands (pop. 53,158), Palau (21,000) and Nauru (pop 10,084) would have cared to follow it in this bit of political exhibitionism.

    Australia’s Foreign minister, Julie Bishop, said that Australia has “consistently not supported one-sided resolutions targeting Israel” and Malcolm Turnbull called the vote “deeply unsettling” (“unsettling” for what exactly?). A former Liberal cabinet minister, Eric Abetz, surmised that the New Zealand vote had to do with a campaign to get former PM Helen Clark as the next Secretary General of the UN and spoke about pragmatism trumping principle. Apparently the news that the UN General Assembly already voted Antonio Guterres to be Ban Ki-Moon’s successor on the 13th of October hasn’t got to him yet.

    So this is ludicrous and turning the matter on its head.

    It is of course Australia’s stance that has nothing to do with principle and is in fact based on petty political pragmatism. The main factor here is the desire to keep the powerful pro-Israel lobby, which is in fact in its local form a pro-settler lobby, on side.

    It is true that Malcolm Turnbull surmised that he might be Jewish based on what his mother told him (he claims that he has never bothered to really find out) and that he represents a district with the largest Jewish population of Sydney (Wentworth). But that cannot be the whole story seeing that his stance is not very different from that of Labor predecessors such as Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard.

    Since the Australian Jewish population represents less than half a percent of the electorate it cannot be its electoral pull that explains Australia’s stance either – even though the Jewish vote might be decisive for a couple of seats.

    Opinion among the Australian electorate in general doesn’t provide an explanation either. The Sydney Morning Herald, after reviewing the trend in polls on Israel and Palestine over time, wrote a number of years ago that “The overwhelming trend shows a sharp swing since the 1980s against Israel’s image and actions among ordinary Australians.The fact of the current disjunction between government policy and public attitudes on the Israel-Palestine issue receives almost no publicity, … But it is becoming increasingly difficult to hide.”

    http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/political-stance-on-palestine-is-out-of-step-with-public-opinion-20120212-1szkn.html

    So one can only conclude that the real explanation lies with the pro-Israel lobby which has obviously been extremely effective in Australia. Former Foreign Minister Bob Carr complained about
    “ the “pro-Israel lobby in Melbourne”, saying it wielded “extraordinary influence” on Australia’s policy during his time in Julia Gillard’s cabinet….”I found it very frustrating that we couldn’t issue, for example, a routine expression of concern about the spread of Israeli settlements on the West Bank – great blocks of housing for Israeli citizens going up on land that everyone regards as part of the future Palestinian state if there is to be a two-state solution,” he said.

    Carr wrote about this in his book The Diary of a Foreign Minister.

    “What I’ve done is to spell out how the extremely conservative instincts of the pro-Israel lobby in Melbourne was (sic) exercised through the then-prime minister’s office.”

    The situation has obviously not improved with the present incumbent of that office.

Leave a Reply

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

Share via
Copy link