Straw man of the day

Here’s the full post:

Israel Could Be Headed Toward “An Apartheid State”

Who said those words, echoing what this blog has been trying to express in the last year and a a half? The full quote is

If, and as long as between the Jordan and the sea, there is only one political entity, named Israel, it will end up being either non-Jewish or non-democratic … If the Palestinians vote in elections, it is a binational state, and if they don’t, it is an apartheid state.

Nah: another emotional blogger with a problem.

The answer is Ehud Barak, but it’s pretty irrelevant even if he were just a blogger.

No one cares if anyone says that Israel could be an apartheid state in the future if it doesn’t separate from the Palestinians. People say it all the time in the peace camp and they are not called haters in any way.

Did anyone accuse Mr. Sullivan of making assertions or insinuations about “apartheid”? No. The Dish has never done that.

It’s possible that I missed it, and someone has accused Andrew of patting himself on the back as “pro-Israel” for screaming vitriol that includes urging it to avoid demographic destruction. Not too long ago he judged Obama’s performance so far as impeccable on many fronts, and regrettable only for mis-understimating the efforts of those stubborn, self-destructive Israelis, with their many American political friends:

His only obvious failure has been Israel. He misjudged the intransigence of Netanyahu and the power of his support on Capitol Hill. But he will keep persisting in trying to rescue the Jewish state from the perils of its own hubris and paranoia.

Wait a second, was Netanyahu the problem or the whole Jewish state? You’re keeping the distinction hazy. Please don’t start an M.O. where you obsessively dis Netanyahu only as a surrogate for the whole state.

Ehud Barak, whom Andrew quotes here, would not appreciate Andrew’s views on Cast Lead, on how Israelis felt about it, on the U.S. relationship to Israel, and on the solutions to Israel’s settlement dilemma. (I guess Barak must be a dove with Goldfarb-Krauthammer wings.)

And “paranoia” about whom? Paranoia about Hamas and Iran? About Obama?

And “hubris” toward what? Obama? The U.S.? The community of nations? It’s hard to sense hubris toward “Fate” there; it’s more like a dig at uppitiness that comes before a fall.

Since the emails are already public … The blogger at Sad Red Earth once wrote The Dish complaining about Andrew’s commending a DiA whitewash of young anti-Zionists. Andrew wrote back:

It may be true of phil weiss but it isn’t of blumenthal and their position, while i disagree, is a legitimate one, worth arguing about. at the rate things are going i cannot imagine israel having a 60th anniversary.

Sad Red Earth responded that Andrew wasn’t familiar with Blumenthal’s “non-Zionism,” as Blumenthal calls it, and asked,

You think anti-Zionism, and an overall stance that demonizes Israel in every respect and seeks its demise, a legitimate position worth arguing about? With respect to what other national group do you hold such a position?

Of course, Israel has already had its 60th anniversary, but it is the very fact that you can conceive of the nation’s end that is the point in all this. Again, of how many other nations could you make such a statement? And this is precisely why people like Blumenthal and Weiss and others like them are waging the campaign that they are.

There’s no need for Andrew to get hysterical, nor, I think for Sad Red Earth to go full-tilt. There is a last-ditch way that apartheid and a “binational” state can be avoided.

To avoid the “demographic problem,” Israel can just withdraw from all the settlements not in the main blocs and move the separation fence in several places (and I don’t mean leaving out Arab-Israeli towns). Israelis, including “hardliner” Michael Oren, would support this as an alternative to playing games with the Palestinian maximalist side of negotiating table.

Unilateral withdrawal can clearly define two entities, with one that has to apply to the UN for statehood, just as before. If there are more Arabs than Jews in between Jordan and the Sea … so what? Aren’t there already more Arabs than Jews in between the Nile and the Euphrates Dam?

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: