We seem to be continuing to slide backwards …..

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

by Neil Godfrey

Mano Singham alerted me to a new article in The Intercept with his post: The death that must not be mentioned in mainstream US discourse

I wonder if the best that can be said about such news is that the great grandchildren of today’s Palestinians will have equal rights alongside Jewish Israelis in a single state with one law for all. …. given no hiccups from unforeseen consequences related to climate change.





The following two tabs change content below.

Neil Godfrey

Neil is the author of this post. To read more about Neil, see our About page.

Latest posts by Neil Godfrey (see all)

If you enjoyed this post, please consider donating to Vridar. Thanks!

6 thoughts on “We seem to be continuing to slide backwards …..”

  1. Many Jews weer against the formation of Israel, Einstein among them, and they were right. What is happening now is the inevitable writing that has been on the wall for generations.

    As many people, including many Jews, have said in the past, the two-state-solution was always the best option for Israel. The fact that they opposed it and prevented it is their own demise.

    There are only two likely outcomes now: Genocide committed by the Jews against the Palestinians or the creation of a single state in which Jews are the minority and lose political control of Israel.

    So by thwarting the two-state-solution the Zionists have backed themselves into a corner of either having to give up Israel or engage in what would have to be the most brutal and public mass genocide since their own experience in WWII. The idea that an apartheid state can exist and last is unrealistic. An apartheid would at best be a short-term pause before either a Palestinian political takeover or genocide ensues.

    All I can do is look on in disbelief and shake my head at how this has gotten to this place.

  2. A radical solution I have thought of, being an American aware that, as an American, any criticism of Israel’s human rights record re Palestinians invites a charge of hypocrisy in light of American human rights issues/foreign intervention issues of its own … is this: proposed, that on Date X the US shall offer both Israel and Palestinian state entities an offer of annexation to become US territories with a path to statehood, to be ratified by democratic vote by Israeli and Palestinian publics. If the offer of annexation to US territorial status is rejected, (a) all US military aid, and all economic aid to Israel except as proportionate to economic aid offered to Palestinians, will be ended in short order by Date Y, and (b) both existing Palestinian territories’ residents and Israeli state residents will be offered a one-time, narrow-window time frame of US immigration on refugee grounds (subject to security vetting).

    The rationale for the offer of US territorial status is that if either side or one side accepts, this brings them under the umbrella of both US military protection and application of US domestic civil rights law with civil rights per domestic US law, i.e. no apartheid.

    The objections would be that this would be an expansion of empire and/or not in US national interest. It is not, however, an objection that the offer of US territorial status with path to statehood is not doable due to lack of geographical continuity: Alaska and Hawaii are the counterexamples there.

    The argument in favor would be that it is an exit plan for US involvement in a human rights catastrophe, and would accomplish protections of Palestinian civil rights which (it is theorized), if accomplished, would reduce the impetus for Palestinian terrorism, which also would be arguably better addressed with US security established in the wake of a popular mandate inviting US annexation/protection.

    I am not advocating this. This is only a brainstorm. I am no expert in this field. I would be interested in assessment of this idea from those more knowledgable than me.

    In a better world it could well be argued that a strong and principled United Nations would intervene and implement protectorate status in hot spots in the world and midwife a transition to peaceful autonomous relations established, in a world in which every aggrieved people or nation had access to redress and a hearing in an international court of law, under a framework of international law with Bills of Rights, and enforcement of court judgments by police bodies under an international command, with disputes between peoples and nation-states settled in court rather than by war. That is a whole different set of issues and a long road to fruition absent a regional nuclear war.

  3. “Many Jews weer against the formation of Israel”

    Almost every nation in the League of Nations approved the Mandate for Palestine. Every Arab representative of that day also approved the Mandate. I have no idea why someone would now think that the formation of Israel would be the wrong thing to do.

    The Mandate for Palestine also created most of the current states of the Mideast, all of which are Muslim states. Should their creation also be considered to be a mistake? Or is it just the Jews, who have never *not* had a presence in the Levant for 5000 years, who somehow should not also have a homeland there?

    And I find your analysis that a likely outcome is genocide by the Israelis to be very curious. Considering that Israel has never shown any penchant for genocide, while the genocide of Jews has been spoken and boasted of by many Arab leaders, attempted by military action more than 5 times, is taught as a worthy goal to Palestinian school children, and is actually a foundational plank of several Arab ruling political parties.

    Also curious is your statement that Israel has thwarted a two-state solution. In fact, Israel agreed to a two-state solution in 1922 when it approved of the Mandate border between itself and Trans-Jordan. Trans-Jordan promised that by ceding Eastern Palestine as the new homeland for displaced Arab Palestinians, and taking the smaller portion of West Palestine, Israel was locking in peace with the Arab world for eternity. Yes, there are actual Jordanians who speak publicly about how their country has failed to meet these obligations.

    1. Roger, your comments were caught up in spam. Presumably you went beyond the normal boundaries of civil discourse earlier. I trust we can discuss your points calmly and with reference to evidence for each assertion.

      But first, I am confused by the logic of your initial comment. You appear to be quoting and responding to my factual statement (I don’t think you or anyone would question it) that many Jews were initially against the formation of the state of Israel. What confuses me is your response. You appear to simply ignore the statement I made and say something about the whole world at that time, even every Arab representative, wanting to help the Jews. That was indeed a commendable time in history and I am encouraged to see you acknowledge even Arab sympathy for the Jews at that time!

      So what is your comment in relation to my point that many Jews at the time opposed the establishment of the state of Israel?

      Once we have cleared the ground on that point we may be able to move on to the next detail I (and I am sure you, also) would like me to respond to.

  4. Like Puerto Rico? The Philippines in the first half of the Twentieth Century? I think the actuality falls somewhat short of your fantasy here.

Leave a Comment

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Discover more from Vridar

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading