Olmert, for starters. A day after the theatrical display at Annapolis, the Israeli Prime Minister gave Haaretz a telling interview, in which he acknowledged in no uncertain terms Israel's Apartheid like nature:
"If the day comes when the two-state solution collapses, and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights (also for the Palestinians in the territories), then, as soon as that happens, the State of Israel is finished."
Because heaven forbid Israel should have to face that struggle. Equal voting rights? Phshh. Why face a fight for equal voting rights when you can fight with Merkavas and F-16s; when you can sustain a decades long occupation of land, people, and resources and mask it with an empty and unrealistic call for two-states (see also his comments today: no firm timetable for peace talks, despite Annapolis) ?
His statement-similar to one he made in 2003 (back then he "shudder[ed] to think that liberal Jewish organizations that shouldered the burden of the struggle against apartheid in South Africa will lead the struggle against [Israel] ), is essentially an acknowledgment not only of the untenability (and the inequity) of the so-called two-state solution, and everything it entails (including sustaining a Jewish majority at the expense of the Palestinian population, no matter what the cost, i.e. ethnic cleansing) but also of the inevitability of a one-state solution.
Its just NOT clear to me why more media has not caught on to this stunning declaration. Maybe its easier to suspend reality for a while-a long while-in favor of an easier to digest fiction (well, easier for some people). That's one mushy piece of fiction.
"If the day comes when the two-state solution collapses, and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights (also for the Palestinians in the territories), then, as soon as that happens, the State of Israel is finished."
Because heaven forbid Israel should have to face that struggle. Equal voting rights? Phshh. Why face a fight for equal voting rights when you can fight with Merkavas and F-16s; when you can sustain a decades long occupation of land, people, and resources and mask it with an empty and unrealistic call for two-states (see also his comments today: no firm timetable for peace talks, despite Annapolis) ?
His statement-similar to one he made in 2003 (back then he "shudder[ed] to think that liberal Jewish organizations that shouldered the burden of the struggle against apartheid in South Africa will lead the struggle against [Israel] ), is essentially an acknowledgment not only of the untenability (and the inequity) of the so-called two-state solution, and everything it entails (including sustaining a Jewish majority at the expense of the Palestinian population, no matter what the cost, i.e. ethnic cleansing) but also of the inevitability of a one-state solution.
Its just NOT clear to me why more media has not caught on to this stunning declaration. Maybe its easier to suspend reality for a while-a long while-in favor of an easier to digest fiction (well, easier for some people). That's one mushy piece of fiction.
0 коммент.:
Speak up your mind
Tell us what you're thinking... !