Skip to main content

View Diary: Explosive leaked documents: The Palestine Papers (363 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  What a stupid comment...... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    arielle, Mets102

    As I said above, the Liberal Zionist has no intellectual position left to stand on after the release of these documents.

    WTF are you talking about???? This doesn't change my opinion one bit. IF this is totally true then Israel is at at fault for not jumping on a good deal.

    More than that it supports the Liberal Zionist position that Two States are completely possible and should be worked for. It shows that there are negotiating partners who are willing to talk peace and thus that should be worked towards. THAT is the Liberal Zionist position. After all this time how don't you understand that?  

    How does this wipe my perspective or anyone else on the Israeli-Center Left?

    I'm not a little giant... I'm a freakin' leprechaun

    by volleyboy1 on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 02:57:34 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Because, of course, (9+ / 0-)

      it simply makes you and the Liberal Zionists useful idiots, fighting day and night on the internet to promote and defend an Israeli government that has never had any intention of supporting such a peace agreement (under any party) and touting a "peace process" whose sole purpose is not to bring about an agreement you seek but to provide diplomatic cover for continuing expansion of the settlements.  Your job is to provide left-wing cover for the Occupation (and in fairness you have done an excelent job).  You support and defend a process of continued Occupation that can never get to the point you say you want, because Israel does not want that.

      "How did you go bankrupt?" "Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly." - Ernest Hemingway, The Sun Also Rises.

      by weasel on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 03:04:43 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  WOW... how much can you be wrong? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        arielle, WattleBreakfast, Mets102

        Because, of course, it simply makes you and the Liberal Zionists useful idiots, fighting day and night on the internet to promote and defend an Israeli government that has never had any intention of supporting such a peace agreement (under any party) and touting a "peace process" whose sole purpose is not to bring about an agreement you seek but to provide diplomatic cover for continuing expansion of the settlements.  

        You really don't understand what any of us are saying here do you? I mean you really don't get this.

        No one here that I know is supporting the Likud Government of Israel. Well ok, maybe some oddball posters but I am talking about the "regulars". Anyway, what we support is the State and the concept of Israel as a Jewish State and homeland of the Jewish people. All of us support some form of Two-State solution from something along the lines of 338 to Ehud Olmert's plan.

        Your accusations about continuing expansion of the settlements is complete and total bullshit and you are going to need to back that up. I and many others have spoken out against the most of the settlements in the past. We have commented on it and diaried it. We have been far more critical of those on our side than you have been on yours. So please spare the rhetorical bullshit.

        Your job is to provide left-wing cover for the Occupation (and in fairness you have done an excelent job).

        Thank you for the compliment but this is not a "job", just something I believe in. Funny enough but no one on my side really cares what I write. They don't know me from a hole in the wall. I believe my own stuff but for the most part, the Israelis would just say "meh"....

        You support and defend a process of continued Occupation that can never get to the point you say you want, because Israel does not want that.

        WRONG... WRONG.. WRONG... I don't want the Occupation to continue any more than you do. What the hell do I want to see Israeli troops tear gassing demonstrators, or sending Jewish kids out to man checkpoints in areas they are not welcome?  NO.. the Occupation has to end but it has to end with Israeli security. That can happen, and perhaps their passing on this deal (if it was true) was and will be a critical mistake.

        Only one thing about this gets me... and heath says it below and in diary.. this is not a deal that would be accepted by those here or by the Palestinian polity. So, if it was not, would Israeli territorial concessions truly make sense?

        However, I believe at some point you have to take a chance for peace. If this was offered.. this was a good one and if Israel passed on it then shame on them.  

        I'm not a little giant... I'm a freakin' leprechaun

        by volleyboy1 on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 03:21:15 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  As usual, I think we'd all benefit (8+ / 0-)

          from not making this personal. Not merely for the sake of civility, bot for analytical accuracy: as volleyboy rightly says, what he as an individual writes and thinks is of no more significance than what I think, or what weasel thinks.

          volley, weasel's substantive point is that American 'liberal Zionists' have in practiced been complicit in the occupation. By championing an obviously cynical 'peace process', by buying into the fiction (repeated by implication in your comment, despite being again debunked in the Palestine Papers) that the problem on the Israeli side is confined to Likud and the 'right wing', by perpetuating a narrative of false equivalence, and most of all by failing to do anything about any of this, aside from opposing BDS and so on, 'liberal Zionists' have, intentionally or otherwise, damaged efforts to end the occupation.

          That's the substantive critique. It's being raised now because the content of the papers decisively debunk the standard 'liberal Zionist' positions - support for the "peace process" and the belief that the problem is confined to the Israeli 'right-wing' - and expose as hollow the reflexive 'liberal Zionist' rhetoric about the need for "both sides to compromise", the "rejectionists on both sides", "every side has made mistakes", and so on.

          •  asdf (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            livosh1, Captain C, Mets102

            As usual, I think we'd all benefit from not making this personal. Not merely for the sake of civility, bot for analytical accuracy:......

            I would thank you for saying this but you just uprated a comment calling myself and others "useful idiots" so pardon me if I don't.

            'liberal Zionists' have, intentionally or otherwise, damaged efforts to end the occupation.

            No, we haven't done things the way the Palestinians or their supporters want us to do things. That is not the same. We don't and won't support BDS because we view it as an attack on Israel in general. It's clear that despite trying to be all things to all people BDS' goals are to bring about a One State solution. WE do support a boycott on settlement made products, but that is not enough for the "Israel de-legitimization crowd".

            I think what is clear here is that you are seeking a solution based on Palestinian terms or what you think would be most fair for the Palestinians. I am not. I am seeking a solution that would secure Israel in the long run as a Jewish State and as the National homeland of the Jewish people.

            In that solution I believe that minorities in Israel and the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories should be treated fairly because it is the right thing for an advanced society to do. At the same time I don't believe in Israeli national suicide.

            You talk about us being reflexive. Well, history didn't start in 2008 with Kadima rejecting a reasonable compromise (IFindeed this is all true). This conflict started a long time ago and so I (and I think) we take that into account.

            I still believe negotiations are the best way to go, so I agree with J Street. However, frankly I am starting to think (thanks to you folks here) that a unilateral withdrawal along modified 1967 lines is what should happen.

            I think we are simply arguing from two different places and there may not be a solution.

            I'm not a little giant... I'm a freakin' leprechaun

            by volleyboy1 on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 04:24:48 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site