I share a lot in common with Sasha Polakow-Suransky, who will be our guest on this Friday’s Zoom call, at 11:30 ET (a little earlier than usual). He’s the child of South African Jewish immigrants to the United States, he’s a journalist, and he’s deeply interested in American foreign policy. (He’s actually
Why isn't the following the most likely "solution" to the dilemma Peter poses?
“[H]istory suggests that a strategy of waiting [to make a deal serves Israel] well: from the British government’s 1937 Peel Commission partition plan and the UN partition plan of 1947 to UN Security Council Resolution 242 [of November 1967] and the Oslo accords [of the 1990s], every formative initiative endorsed by the great powers has given more to the Jewish community in Palestine than the previous one.” And, “If and when Israel is confronted with the [ultimate political] threat of a single [Palestinian-majority] state [encompassing Israel and the occupied territories], it can enact a unilateral withdrawal and count on the support of the great powers in doing so.” H/t: Portion of response to 25., of a piece I learned of from Prof. Juan Cole's site: https://detailedpoliticalquizzes.wordpress.com/israel-palestine-quiz/ While I do not agree with the entire response to 25., it is well sourced and very informative. In fact, the question posed in 25. is brilliant.
Hi Peter, thanks for your courage. I've was just banned from J Street, I presume for talking about the binational state which I came out of in favor of 4-5 days ago. J Street will allow people to viciously attack them as antisemites, chain spam ultranationalist propaganda for years on end, but when someone puts forward new ideas and engages people in substantive conversation beyond the binary of the two state solution and the status quo, they're gone.
I’m super bummed out right now. Think I’ll eat some ice cream.
"I share a lot in common with Sasha Polakow-Suransky"
You forgot to mention that you are both Rhodes Scholars. ;-)
I'm looking through Sasha's book now. I find it hard to take him very seriously when he writes about principled opposition to South African apartheid by leaders of the Israeli Labor Party. This is a major theme in the first couple of chapters. Here's a quote from page 20:
"Israel's Zionist Labor government, led by David Ben-Gurion, began to voice its opposition to apartheid policies. Laws mandating residential segregation, restricting the movement of black citizens, and creating separate and unequal educational institutions reminded Israeli leaders of the Nuremberg Laws, which had institutionalized discrimination against German Jews in the 1930s. Despite being a young state with few friends, Israel vowed to oppose them."
I think most readers of your site are aware that during the entire period when Ben-Gurion was prime minister of Israel, there were laws in Israel mandating residential segregation, restricting the movement of Palestinian citizens, and creating separate and unequal educational institutions. Did those laws that they themselves enacted remind Israeli leaders of the Nuremberg Laws? Maybe not, because Jews were being privileged. But as the book points out, Jews were also being privileged by South African apartheid because they were classified as White.
I remember those anti-apartheid days in the US, Peter, and it wasn't just Cambridge lefties. It even hit the engineering schools away from Boston. I've still got my Sun City tape around somewhere. The engineers mightn't have been keen on divestment, but a lot of them were listening. Much more than in those days, though, foreign policy's the province of the poli sci kids. During the first impeachment hearings I wanted to show a bunch of chemistry grad students Bill Taylor's testimony as an example of excellently-pitched multipurpose communication of a highly technical matter to multiple nonspecialist audiences. Their first question: "Who's being impeached?" The only one who had a clue was the Chinese student. It's a rare young person who gets headlines from a non-algorithmically-driven source.
Chunky Monkeygate's going to go down as something, because we're totally in Peter Sellers territory here. Do they understand this, do you think?
Why isn't the following the most likely "solution" to the dilemma Peter poses?
“[H]istory suggests that a strategy of waiting [to make a deal serves Israel] well: from the British government’s 1937 Peel Commission partition plan and the UN partition plan of 1947 to UN Security Council Resolution 242 [of November 1967] and the Oslo accords [of the 1990s], every formative initiative endorsed by the great powers has given more to the Jewish community in Palestine than the previous one.” And, “If and when Israel is confronted with the [ultimate political] threat of a single [Palestinian-majority] state [encompassing Israel and the occupied territories], it can enact a unilateral withdrawal and count on the support of the great powers in doing so.” H/t: Portion of response to 25., of a piece I learned of from Prof. Juan Cole's site: https://detailedpoliticalquizzes.wordpress.com/israel-palestine-quiz/ While I do not agree with the entire response to 25., it is well sourced and very informative. In fact, the question posed in 25. is brilliant.
BDS is based on a lie which even you know. Israel is the only non apartheid nation in the middle East.
the current board head of b & J is a known terrorist supporter It was started by a terrorist Omar Barghouti
The Nbaka is a joke
It starts.
Hi Peter, thanks for your courage. I've was just banned from J Street, I presume for talking about the binational state which I came out of in favor of 4-5 days ago. J Street will allow people to viciously attack them as antisemites, chain spam ultranationalist propaganda for years on end, but when someone puts forward new ideas and engages people in substantive conversation beyond the binary of the two state solution and the status quo, they're gone.
I’m super bummed out right now. Think I’ll eat some ice cream.
"I share a lot in common with Sasha Polakow-Suransky"
You forgot to mention that you are both Rhodes Scholars. ;-)
I'm looking through Sasha's book now. I find it hard to take him very seriously when he writes about principled opposition to South African apartheid by leaders of the Israeli Labor Party. This is a major theme in the first couple of chapters. Here's a quote from page 20:
"Israel's Zionist Labor government, led by David Ben-Gurion, began to voice its opposition to apartheid policies. Laws mandating residential segregation, restricting the movement of black citizens, and creating separate and unequal educational institutions reminded Israeli leaders of the Nuremberg Laws, which had institutionalized discrimination against German Jews in the 1930s. Despite being a young state with few friends, Israel vowed to oppose them."
I think most readers of your site are aware that during the entire period when Ben-Gurion was prime minister of Israel, there were laws in Israel mandating residential segregation, restricting the movement of Palestinian citizens, and creating separate and unequal educational institutions. Did those laws that they themselves enacted remind Israeli leaders of the Nuremberg Laws? Maybe not, because Jews were being privileged. But as the book points out, Jews were also being privileged by South African apartheid because they were classified as White.
Great analysis and breakdown
I remember those anti-apartheid days in the US, Peter, and it wasn't just Cambridge lefties. It even hit the engineering schools away from Boston. I've still got my Sun City tape around somewhere. The engineers mightn't have been keen on divestment, but a lot of them were listening. Much more than in those days, though, foreign policy's the province of the poli sci kids. During the first impeachment hearings I wanted to show a bunch of chemistry grad students Bill Taylor's testimony as an example of excellently-pitched multipurpose communication of a highly technical matter to multiple nonspecialist audiences. Their first question: "Who's being impeached?" The only one who had a clue was the Chinese student. It's a rare young person who gets headlines from a non-algorithmically-driven source.
Chunky Monkeygate's going to go down as something, because we're totally in Peter Sellers territory here. Do they understand this, do you think?