Why can't articles like this be printed in the United States? We are supposed to have a free press that allows a debate of opinion.

I do not agree with many of the points of the author, but I did not find his arguments extreme. He thinks the two-state solution cannot work anymore and proposes a binational state. I think that has even less chance of working than the two-state solution but why shouldn't Judt get his opinion published? He also thinks that a nation-state is passe. This is a common notion among both liberals and neocons. Since I think the United States should be allowed to control its borders and protect its national identity, I do not begrudge the Israelis the right to do so as well (though I have met several people who think Israel has that right but not the United States).

And sometimes you should abandon the defense of something if it is not worth the cost. Judt's analysis may be flawed, but the questions he deals with are not unreasonable. America's Middle East policy would be better if people thought more about some of these questions.

Dan, locate for me the sentence where I said it 'should not be allowed'. I mean, really. When would I ever say that? My point was that this is a really extreme view. Extreme views don't generally end up in the LA Times. I'm all for an open press but for some reason you don't see too many newspapers arguing that the Pentagon didn't really have a plane crash into it. Why? Because it's insane. As insane as arguing that Jews around the world should cower in fear because they may be criticized or attacked because Israel dare exist.

Kashei:

You seem to suggest that opinions like Judt's are not worth publishing in major newspapers. I may not agree with everything he said, but his views are certainly not extreme.

And violence from the Middle East is unfortunately spilling over into other parts of the world. A resolution to the Israeli-Arab conflict would certainly help reduce that violence. I really do not understand what your objections to the existance of that article and why it is somehow beyond the pale.

I agree with Dan, I didn't think the views of the article were "extreme".
the article does make some relevant points but I disgree with the major theme/solution in the article.

The 2 nation state system is the only way to go, however doomed it may seem the alternatives are even worse.
The Arabs would use a Binational Solution to destroy what Israel is today, so it will no longer be a homeland for Jews.
Israel permantantly taking over the occupied territories and ethnic cleansing the arab population, I could only see that making things much worse for all parties.

I am definately not for Israeli giving up their state because it's causing trouble in the diaspora. That is loser talk. Jews are tuff and Isreal definately aren't losers they have kicked Arab ass in every war.
K, I agree with you that is pathetic rationalization for a reason to do away with Israel.

Dan, what if an article in, say, a French or British paper, argued that the US should institute Sharia law and become a Muslim state. This would preclude future attacks on it and would also allow Americans to travel freely and without worry through many Muslim countries. Would that be extreme?

Paul, what part of the article do you agree with?

Kashei:

That would be extreme. But, I don't see the connection. Judt is trying to advocate a solution to the problem at hand (the ongoing Palestinian/Israeli crisis). I do not think his solution will work, but why is it extreme?

One benefit of a solution to that crisis is that there will be less violence spilling over into the rest of the world. I think that is a pretty good thing. I find it hard to see what is bothering you so much.

Dan, the exact same argument you are making could be made for my example of America instituting Sharia law. The author would be advocating a solution to the problem at hand (Islamofacists wanting to kill infidels.) Why is it extreme? Because just as following my example would destroy America, following Judt's example would destroy Israel.

As in my example, one benefit to America becoming a Muslim state would be that our allies wouldn't have to worry about supporting us. There would be no spillover violence as well.

It is important to realize that Judt does not believe that his solution is harmful. He believes the transformation of Israel and the Occupied Territories into a binational state is the only workable solution. I do not believe that his idea is workable, but I do not think that Judt wants to destroy Israel. Using that phrase is very inflammatory and makes reasonable discourse impossible. While it is unlikely that Judt's solution will work in the case of Israel and the Palestinians, it is certainly not extreme to discuss it.

Recently, I got to visit South Africa. A decade ago, that country faced very difficult problems, too. One could say that those that advocated the end of the old system were for destroying South Africa. But it would be more accurate to say that they believed the old system was unworkable and something radical needed to be done. Instead of partitioning the country in multiple states with different ethnic groups in each state (because everyone was all mixed up all over the same land), it was decided to have one state. So far, despite lots of obstacles, it seems to be working. Maybe Judt's solution could work in the Middle East, too. He may be wrong, but it is certainly worth discussing.

Hey, I read that last post by Kashei thinking Dan had written it until I finished reading it. It's funny but it seemed like something Dan would write.

K, i didn't really agree with anything in the article, I just said that it made relevant points but I didn't agree with those points. I was showing that the article wasn't an extreme wacko point of view that is not worth printing in a major newspaper.

Paul:

Actually, I did write it. I meant to address it to Kashei and wrote her name in the wrong spot.

Dan

7615 adipex