Support for Israel will soon mean supporting Trumpenyahu, being indifferent to the permanent occupation, and acceptance of the settlements and the one-state solution.

The half-hearted support for the two-state solution was a psychological mechanism to excuse support for a rightwing, theocratic state where even Jews have fewer religious liberties than they do in Europe and North America.

Now that it's no longer an option, people will have to decide whether joining Trump in unconditional support of an apartheid regime is something they want on their conscience.

They have been, for lack of a better word, ex-communicated by the AIPAC crowd.

In American politics during the Trump era, you can't criticize Israel or suggest it in any way be held accountable for the settlements and be considered pro-Israel.

Love Israel, love the settlements. They're now one and the same.

They hitched their wagon to liberal Zionism which just went over the cliff.

Like Kerry and Obama and many others.

The Israelis' idea of a supporter is Donald J. Trump.

There is no room for a liberal Zionism just like there was no room for a liberal Afrikaaner nationalism.

If one is not with the Israeli government as they demand, then they consider you against them.

The old days of Ben-Gurion are gone. What exists today is a nation where Avigdor Lieberman is considered a moderate.

I don't know why you keep pretending that Israel = Netanyahu. His party got 23 percent of the vote in the election.

Herzog, the opposition leader, whose party came in second by four points said this:

Netanyahu and Lieberman are liberals within their own coalition.

John McCain and Lindsey Graham are considered moderates. In the House it's hard to think of any.

Ehud Barak: 'Majority of Israelis' agree with Kerry

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/222451

It's more accurate to state that hostility to Israel is a Leftist position. Not Liberal. Not Democrat.

Anyhow, Israel has its dream US President in Trump, who opposes a Palestinian state.

Obama was the last paternalistic US President committed to preserving the Zionist promise. As the reality of semi-permanent apartheid in the West Bank becomes more difficult to ignore, the fault lines will become similar to those surrounding our policy towards South Africa. Trumpists and the AIPAC crowd will adhere to the "support Israel 100%, including its apartheid" while an increasing number will find themselves unable to support apartheid.

the hostility of BDS, and the people for whom Israel can do no good and is entirely at fault for the conflict. You don't see many liberals or centrists and almost no conservatives hold that position.

surpassed Jews on their enemies list.

There is some criticism of Israel that is motivated by anti-Semitism and cloaked in ideological language.

The Trump/Netanyahu alliance could finally kill all hope for a two-state solution, once and for all. I'm of the belief that the two-state solution has effectively been dead for years, but nominally that is still the goal.

The illusion that there were still negotiations for a two-state solution allowed Israel to maintain an apartheid state, using as an excuse the idea that the apartheid was temporary until the negotiations were complete. But now with Trump, and with David Friedman as ambassador, the illusion is gone. Friedman, along with a lot of the Israeli right, wants a permanent apartheid state.

That's where things could get sticky. In the short term, with Trump as an ally, Israel can go right ahead with settlements, occupation, apartheid, because nobody is going to stop them.

But in the longer term, there is the question of how long the world will continue to accept Israel as a permanent apartheid state. It's not guaranteed that the US will always have a far-right government.

line being labeled a hater of Israel and an anti-Semite.

They're going to define "pro-Israel" in such a way that no one with an ounce of progressive character is going to be willing to be on the "pro-Israel" side.

Especially when the two-state solution is finally pronounced dead, and the reality of Israel as a permanent apartheid state begins to sink in.

But when the two-state solution officially dies, it's going to be much harder for the apartheid apologists to keep the whole thing up. Right now we're in a period where the far-right has control in Israel and is about to take control in the US, which signals a temporary green light for whatever the Israeli right wants to do. But this is not a permanent situation.

In the long run, I do think Netanyahu has got to be careful what he wishes for. He's always been in favor of permanent apartheid, but the fact that the US has been for two states let him pretend that the apartheid was temporary. And I think that, despite Israel's lobbying prowess in the US, permanent apartheid is probably too much to sustain.

Dianne Feinstein and other liberal/center-left Democrats were still counted as pro-Israel by the AIPAC crowd.

That's going to end under Trump. Anyone associated with the Obama administration's viewpoints is going to be viewed as an enemy of Israel by those who take it upon themselves to police such matters.

I have no illusions about what most Democratic politicians will do--they'll make excuses for apartheid and just ignore it at best. Very few will have the gonads to take a principled stand on progressive/liberal principles. There's simply nothing politically to be gained by departing from the dominant party line in DC regarding Israel/Palestine.

But, the bipartisan consensus will continue to erode slowly with every election cycle as more and more Democrats gradually peel away from Team Apartheid.

The Democratic party's support for the regime in Israel will one day be as anachronistic and contrary to its values as its support for Jim Crow.

Yes, for a while many Dems will go along, but in the long run the permanent one-state apartheid will be too grotesque, particularly for a new generation that has seen nothing but apartheid from Israel. Right now, people still have dreams of Oslo, but pretty soon it will be nothing but settlement expansion and brutal occupation for years on end.

This is what liberal Zionists always feared. If there isn't a two-state solution, the only options are a pluralistic non-Jewish state, or an apartheid state.

What actually happens is that anyone expressing anything remotely positive about Israel is labeled a racist or an "apartheid apologist" - like you just did.

I used the label "apartheid apologist" for people who apologize for the apartheid in occupied Palestine. There are plenty of positive things to be said about Israel without defending the settlements and occupation.

There are many Israelis who want a two-state solution, but they are losing the politics to the people who want permanent apartheid. Which is really too bad.

After a more careful reading of your post, I agree with you and apologize for the mischaracterization.

Do you agree with me that the two-state solution is now truly dead? I haven't posted in I/P for a while, the latest UN resolution caused me to check back in, but I remember when I did, even though I disagreed with you sometimes, you had a lot of smart things to say.

What's your take?

There really is no alternative. The Palestinian people want to live in their own independent state just as the Israelis do. Unfortunately, the current Israeli far-right leadership has no interest in making that a reality. Trump coming into the picture will just encourage those elements.

I do believe, though, that there will come a time when, as Kerry pointed out, the Israeli RW will realize they cannot have a democratic Jewish state if they do not allow the Palestinians to have their independence. That moment is going to come very soon if Netanyahu continues on his current path of settlement expansion and potential annexation.

At some point, painful compromises are going to need to be made on all sides. Bear in mind that the Palestinian side did not particularly like Kerry's speech either and found his proposals to be unacceptable.

My belief is that if some kind of breakthrough can be reached with respect to Jerusalem, then all of the other issues are actual solvable if people are willing to accept not getting everything that they want.

Even with reasonable leadership on both sides it would be tough. So many issues. Right-of-return is a non-starter for Israel, but no Palestinian leaders have ever seemed very keen on concessions. And every settlement built makes two-states more difficult, because Israelis don't seem very keen on having the settlements unsettled. And then there's the fact that Israel can't give Palestine independence if it knows the first thing that will happen is Hamas (or someone like Hamas) takes power and starts firing rockets.

Yes, the Palestinians didn't like Kerry's proposals either, testament as to how far apart the two sides are.

What I see coming is expanding settlements, Israel's right-wing attempting essentially a decades long war of attrition, hoping that the standard of living will become so miserable in the West Bank that enough Palestinians will simply move away and go live in Jordan or Lebanon or wherever and forget that they are Palestinians. Which I don't see the Palestinians doing.

No good outcome. We need Rabin back.

There are certainly plenty of reasons to be pessimistic (as you articulate here).

For decades the Palestinians have been telling them, in word and and especially in deed, that they will never accept the Jewish state of Israel. And the Israelis have heard the message and are now starting to seriously believe it. They have lost hope in peace with the Palestinians, and they are looking to other options. Unfortunately, this plays into the hands of Bibi and the Settlers.

isn't like any leader Bebe has ever dealt with. I'm anticipating a bad breakup soon.

Maybe you should read/listen to Kerry's speech?

And enumerates the various reasons why he and other Democrats do so.

And he points out:

Last edited Sun Jan 1, 2017, 10:26 PM - Edit history (1)

you need to meet a whole lot more Democrats. Try visiting places like NYC, Boston, Los Angeles, Miami and even the Washington D.C. suburbs of Maryland and Virginia, all crucial epicenters of Democratic fundraising and organization.

There's a reason why absolutely no one in an elected Democratic congressional or party leadership position supported the UN abstention, and congressional Democrats are desperately engaging in damage control behind the scenes fearing the effect the UN abstention will have on the 2018 congressional races. Obama gave the Republicans a unifying lifeline when they would otherwise by fighting with Trump over Russia.

The Republicans would like nothing more than strong support for Israel to be a "right-wing thing." They've been trying to accomplish it for decades. However, Democrats are not stupid, and the poll numbers speak for themselves.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/05/23/5-facts-about-how-americans-view-the-israeli-palestinian-conflict/
http://www.gallup.com/poll/189626/americans-views-toward-israel-remain-firmly-positive.aspx

Also, to turn your questions, what is there in the Palestinian Territories for a Democrat to Support? Rocket attacks against civilians? Undeniable misogyny and gays fearing for their lives, to say nothing of rampant antisemitism? A total absence of democracy and human rights?

with reduced mainstream support among our entire Party and independents. It's politically dangerous "bubble" thinking, and the same myopic attitude that lost Clinton the election in states like Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.

If the Democratic Party adopts the far left Israel position that LT desires or expects, it will drive the vast majority of Jews and significant numbers of mainstream moderates, along with their vast political, social, logistical and financial support, particularly in important states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Missouri and Florida (not to mention NY and CA), straight out of the Party and our interest groups. If some think our political influence is disastrous now with Republicans in control of the White House, Senate, the House and most statehouses, they have no idea of the pain and despair that would ensue by intentionally alienating historic lynchpin Democratic constituencies over an issue like Israel that enjoys overall deep and wide bipartisan electoral support.

for a very long time.

On a side note, I don't believe that LT even lives in the States.

However, you made an explicit claim that support for Israel is "more a right wing thing" and "support for Israel is mostly residual from the good old days." Would you care to actually provide evidence to back-up those statements other than your personal aspirations?

The two-state solution is a fig leaf for them to support apartheid while pretending otherwise.
Support for Israel is driven by identity politics, religious fervor, and hostility towards Arabs and Muslims.

As far as this being a back-breaker in 2018 congressional elections, gimme a break. It is true that Americans generally despise the Palestinians, but the average voter doesn't care nearly as much as our political elites do.

I find the whole recitation of Palestinian evils rather rich from those whose implicitl or explicit support for the one-state solution made it inevitable. Israel bought those when they decided to steal the entire West Bank and its water while turning every Palestiniab community in the WB and Gaza into open air prisons.

Maybe should have thought about those evils before vehemently denouncing efforts to stop Israel's slow motion annexation via settlement.

Support for the Palestinians is too. I really do not buy into any significant migration. I also do not particularly blame Trump. He is hitching a ride, but I do not see that he has ever held an opposing view on the matter. I view the 2 state vs 1 state issue as above his pay grade historically. As a NY real estate guy, it was in his interest to embrace Israel's strength, but that was all there was to it. Perhaps his in-laws hold some sway, but I doubt much.

The accusation that Israel supporters, the majority of our Party and vast majority of the American electorate, are not really liberal because of their support for Israel is presumptuous and offensive. Maybe you should consider that you and those like you are out of tune.

As I indicated in my earlier post, winning elections is more than ultimate vote counts. It requires a lot of fundraising, organization and breadth of support. There's a reason why no major Democrats, including a number of unquestioned liberals, supported Obama's UN abstention, for no other reason than it's just terrible politics. A LOT of Democratic fundraising, for issues well beyond the Middle East, involve people who care very much about Israel. They will not open open up their checkbooks or lift a finger to help our Party if we adopted any position on Israel you would support. As for the hypothetical average voter, "Israel" has become a buzzword little different than "guns" or "abortion," and if a candidate doesn't support Israel, in most areas of the country, including those that are deep blue, it is akin to political suicide. Whether you like this state of affairs is irrelevant to the political reality.

We also know you don't like the "recitation of Palestinian evils." However, they exist, and they are no different than they were in pre-1967 before Israel took control of the territories. Many Palestinians, encouraged by their leaders, still believe they will achieve a Palestinian state "from the River to the Sea," and many here seem to think that would be acceptable. It would not, and the implicit support for such a "one state" idea will cause nothing for calamity for our Party.

for acknowledging the status of Palestinians as human beings. Political suicide to not kiss Israel's ass in most rural Congressional districts? Because of campaign $$$, not organic voter sentiment.

You (deliberately?) misread my statement--I said many are liberal on every other subject other than Israel. Chuck Schumer is such an example--with Barack Obama on every other issue, with Ted Cruz and Donald Trump on Israel.

The Palestinian state between the river and the sea is now very possible due to Israel's very own implementation of its Greater Israel project wherein Israel itself greedily gobbled up all of the land (including drinking water) between the river and the sea. The current state of Israel will perish when Palestinians put down rifles and demand the right to vote and other measures of basic human rights.

The settlements are Israel's suicide vest. History will not look kindly upon those who actively excused and enabled Israel's self-destruction under the guise of friendship.

It is wrong for Bibi and Trump to be so closely aligned. This may hurt Israel down the road with the American public

Last edited Mon Jan 2, 2017, 01:35 AM - Edit history (1)

abstaining on a crucial United Nations vote on Israel a few weeks before Trump's inauguration, is precisely the LAST thing the president should have done. It was a gift to the Republicans that will not lead to peace, but will certainly alienate a key Democratic constituency along with most independents.

We should be emphasizing how Trump's pro-Russia positions are bad for Israel and the entire Middle East because they are destabilizing the region and allying with Iran. Instead, Bibi and Trump are closer than ever, and Trump and the Republicans will likely get "bonus" political points among their voters by cutting funding to and otherwise punishing the United Nations, an institution that most definitely does not enjoy popular support among most Americans. How precisely will that help important Democratic priorities like women's rights and the environment?

Not sure what you mean when you write that they are closer than ever.

Did you really not understand the content of the post (now corrected)?

By president Obama forcing the Israeli issue, Trump will have little choice but to prove his conservative bona fides by demonstrating his pro-Israel / anti-United Nations credibility. Any chance of moderation evaporated. While Trump got along well with Bibi before, Israel was still not a top of the list priority after his inauguration. Now, not only will the UN vote certainly not bring the peace, with the intense press and recriminations, Trump and the Republicans will almost assuredly move our embassy to Jerusalem, cut some or possibly all UN funding and Palestinian aid, and force Congressional Democrats to either go along with the Republicans or face a fundraising disaster in key Jewish enclaves like New York, Los Angeles and Miami in the 2018 elections that we desperately need to win. Moreover, as demonstrated by Theresa May's stark criticism of John Kerry, even the major states who voted for the UN resolution are now concerned about their relationship with the Trump administration, and want the Israeli issue to go away ASAP.

I even just read an article that Trump wants Bibi to attend his inauguration. Bibi couldn't be more pleased.

That makes sense.

Second, he should attend Trump's coup ceremony since he was instrumental in the rigging/hacking of the 2016 election.

The world needs to see all the power players who helped destroy America's democracy.

Israel.

works for me.

Care to expound on or provide some proof that he was "instrumental in the rigging/hacking of the 2016 election"?

were from Europe. The hospital where he was born may have been in Tel Aviv but the genes were from Europe. And it's clear he's European from his features especially his PINK skin.

I think we should call him what he is; a person of Polish (Euro) ancestry born in Tel Aviv Israel which is in the Middle East.

There's an article that may have been published in 2015 describing Putin and Netanyahu's alliance to work on some unspecified agenda. I don't think they will out Israel until after Trump's coup ceremony.

If he moved from China and became a citizen yesterday that would make him an Israeli.

My people came from Africa which makes me African American. I'm speaking of his ancestry of origin not his citizenship.

and grandparents and great grandparents, etc.

Too bad we can't use the same logic with the 11 million undocumented Mexicans who also make same claim regarding the western part half of the US which used to be Mexican territory.

ancestry. Obama is of Irish and African ancestry. My niece is Dutch and African American. All of these people are proud of their ancestry.

You should look up the definition of racism. This ain't it.

Bizarre statement.

I assume by that you are referring to American Jews. More specifically, non-Orthodox American Jews. Two facts - the vast majority of non-Orthodox American Jews support the 2 state solution. In addition, they are NOT one issue voters - with Israel being the issue. On issues like economic and social justice and the environment, they are more consistently liberal than Christian America.

Rather than isolating liberal Jews from the Democratic party, what is more likely is that the right wing drift of Israel and the settlement policies will alienate a larger part of the non-Orthodox Jews from Israel. Guess what - Netanyahu won't care. His support in the US is likely higher among evangelical Republicans than liberal Democratic Jews.

If you see Obama's position on Iran either reflecting or solidifying America's 2 state policy.


April 16, 2009
Obama committed to 2 state solution within 4 years?
By Clarice Feldman

Yedioth Achronoth, the largest circulation daily in Israel, is reporting that Rahm Emanuel has said that President Obama intends to implement a two state solution of Israel and Palestine within his first term in office. MJ Rosenberg, the Washington Director of Policy Analysis for the Israel Policy Forum reports:

Rahm Emanuel told an (unnamed) Jewish leader; "In the next four years there is going to be a permanent status arrangement between Israel and the Palestinians on the basis of two states for two peoples, and it doesn't matter to us at all who is prime minister."

He also said that the United States will exert pressure to see that deal is put into place."Any treatment of the Iranian nuclear problem will be contingent upon progress in the negotiations and an Israeli withdrawal from West Bank territory," the paper reports Emanuel as saying. In other words, US sympathy for Israel's position vis a vis Iran depends on Israel's willingness to live up to its commitment to get out of the West Bank and permit the establishment of a Palestinian state there, in Gaza, and East Jerusalem.

Yedioth also reports that Obama is conveying his displeasure with the new Israeli government in several ways.

Yedioth Achronoth, the largest circulation daily in Israel, is reporting that Rahm Emanuel has said that President Obama intends to implement a two state solution of Israel and Palestine within his first term in office. MJ Rosenberg, the Washington Director of Policy Analysis for the Israel Policy Forum reports:

Rahm Emanuel told an (unnamed) Jewish leader; "In the next four years there is going to be a permanent status arrangement between Israel and the Palestinians on the basis of two states for two peoples, and it doesn't matter to us at all who is prime minister."

He also said that the United States will exert pressure to see that deal is put into place."Any treatment of the Iranian nuclear problem will be contingent upon progress in the negotiations and an Israeli withdrawal from West Bank territory," the paper reports Emanuel as saying. In other words, US sympathy for Israel's position vis a vis Iran depends on Israel's willingness to live up to its commitment to get out of the West Bank and permit the establishment of a Palestinian state there, in Gaza, and East Jerusalem.

Yedioth also reports that Obama is conveying his displeasure with the new Israeli government in several ways.


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/04/obama_committed_to_2_state_sol.html#ixzz4Ue4FzFnr