tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5455383.post2048124745632564394..comments2023-10-08T18:46:47.526+03:00Comments on E-man and the Masters of the University: 1948 vs. 1967Emmanuelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02270751138155111328noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5455383.post-74444587453200349682012-01-23T20:02:23.722+02:002012-01-23T20:02:23.722+02:00”You're using the term "Revisionist Zioni...<i>”You're using the term "Revisionist Zionists" incorrectly. The term has a very specific meaning - it is the right-wing movement (both economically and conflict-wise) founded by Ze'ev Jabotinsky, and which later became Menachem Begin's Herut and Likud.”</i><br /><br />Strictly speaking you are correct but de facto there was very little difference between Jabotinsky and Ben-Gurion re. how the sate had to be established (there always was only one way, of course). The former articulated his views louder and more publicly than the latter. In that respect it’s really a distinction w/o a difference.Gerthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07752117708821629614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5455383.post-25587803176986220882012-01-23T13:18:18.418+02:002012-01-23T13:18:18.418+02:00"For those who still believe in the TSS, ther...<i>"For those who still believe in the TSS, there’s a third way. Israel withdraws its settlers ‘unilaterally’ but maintains the military occupation, in the name of security and later withdraws its army fully, upon full bilateral agreement. This is an offer the Palestinians could not refuse in good faith."</i><br /><br />Sometimes I think that's a good idea. Sometimes I'm not sure such a huge effort is worth it without international guarentees. Sometimes I think the exact opposite should be done - the military should leave (after an agreement only), and the fanatic settlers who want to stay there should stay. No point in fighting the bastards.<br /><br /><i>"As regards ‘the cases of 1948 and 1967’, that faux-separation is a typical Israeli ‘Left’ construction. It’s very clear that the policies of 1948 (then directed by ‘Leftist’ Revisionist Zionists) have been continued after 1967 by alternating ‘Leftist’ Revisionist Zionist and ‘Rightist’ Revisionist Zionist Goverments."</i><br /><br />You're using the term "Revisionist Zionists" incorrectly. The term has a very specific meaning - it is the right-wing movement (both economically and conflict-wise) founded by Ze'ev Jabotinsky, and which later became Menachem Begin's Herut and Likud. <br /><br />I assume that by "revisionist" you meant to say expansionist. Correct me if I'm wrong. <br /><br />Whether or not 1967 was a continuation of 1948 or not (in some aspects it was, in some it wasn't) is irrelevant to Susser's arguments. The question is whether the Palestinians will ever stop trying to undo 1948.Emmanuelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02270751138155111328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5455383.post-26333097156165835512012-01-22T21:18:18.512+02:002012-01-22T21:18:18.512+02:00For those who still believe in the TSS, there’s a ...For those who still believe in the TSS, there’s a third way. Israel withdraws its settlers ‘unilaterally’ but maintains the military occupation, in the name of security and later withdraws its army fully, upon full bilateral agreement. This is an offer the Palestinians could not refuse in good faith.<br /><br />This would also show that Israel is acting in ‘good faith’ (well, sort of) and would show the world it’s willing to make ‘concessions’ (withdrawing from what doesn’t belong to you isn’t a concession in my book but the world imposes its parlance upon me!)<br /><br />By maintaining and accelerating settlement building the prospect of reaching an agreement becomes simply impossible: it’s a miracle that some Palestinians (albeit now very few) still seem in favour of negotiating with Israel; it’s a bit like negotiating the price of a house while the ‘owners’ are constantly reducing the dwelling’s size! No one would fall for that.<br /><br />But it’s all a pipe dream: as long as the I/P issue is a matter that can make or break a potential POTUS election/re-election the US will support whatever Israel does, bar paying a bit of lip to some objections.<br /><br />If the growing anti-Zionist movement one day prevails in the US, there will be hell to pay for Israel. For that to happen, Israel only needs to keep doing what it does right now: the truth will inevitably out one fine day…<br /><br />As regards ‘the cases of 1948 and 1967’, that faux-separation is a typical Israeli ‘Left’ construction. It’s very clear that the policies of 1948 (then directed by ‘Leftist’ Revisionist Zionists) have been continued after 1967 by alternating ‘Leftist’ Revisionist Zionist and ‘Rightist’ Revisionist Zionist Goverments. There really NEVER was an intention to ‘share’ and Palestinian claims to the land have always been minimised from Day One to this day. Lizzard Gingrich (now dangerously closer to getting the nomination) is only one of many who echoed that sentiment recently. The RNC’s latest adopted resolutions re. Zionism’s place in the ME further underscore it.<br /><br />The settlement policy isn’t the brainchild of a few ‘crazed religious fanatics’ or of ‘Bad Likud’, it runs through Zionism’s history like a prominent thread. Undeniable and plain for all to see…Gerthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07752117708821629614noreply@blogger.com