An expert opines on the futility of a “two state solution”

Tareq Baconi, author of “Hamas Contained” and president of the board of al-Shabaka, the Palestinian Policy Network opines in the NYT (not behind paywall - link good for 30 days):

After 176 days, Israel’s assault on Gaza has not stopped, and has expanded into what Human Rights Watch has declared to be a policy of starvation as a weapon of war. .... the international community has reverted to a deeply familiar call for a two-state solution, where Palestinians and Israelis can coexist in peace and security. President Biden even declared “the only real solution is a two-state solution” in his State of the Union address last month.

But the call rings hollow. The language that surrounds a two-state solution has lost all meaning. Over the years, I’ve encountered many Western diplomats who privately roll their eyes at the prospect of two states — given Israel’s staunch opposition to it, the lack of interest in the West of exerting enough pressure on Israel to change its behavior, and Palestinian political ossification — even as their politicians repeat the same phrase ad nauseam. Yet in the shadow of what the International Court of Justice has said could plausibly be genocide, everyone has returned to the chorus line, stressing that the gravity of the situation means that this time will be different.

It will not be. Repeating the two-state solution mantra has allowed policymakers to avoid confronting the reality that partition is unattainable in the case of Israel and Palestine, and illegitimate as an arrangement originally imposed on Palestinians without their consent in 1947. And fundamentally, the concept of the two-state solution has evolved to become a central pillar of sustaining Palestinian subjugation and Israeli impunity. The idea of two states as a pathway to justice has in and of itself normalized the daily violence meted out against Palestinians by Israel’s regime of apartheid.

The vacuity of the two-state solution mantra is most obvious in how often policymakers speak of recognizing a Palestinian state without discussing an end to Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory. Quite the contrary: With the United States reportedly exploring initiatives to recognize Palestinian statehood, it is simultaneously defending Israel’s prolonged occupation at the International Court of Justice, arguing that Israel faces “very real security needs” that justify its continued control over Palestinian territories.

[The] failed attempts at a two-state solution are not a failure for Israel at all but a resounding success, as they have fortified Israel’s grip over this territory while peace negotiations ebbed and flowed but never concluded. In recent years, international and Israeli human rights organizations have acknowledged what many Palestinians have long argued: that Israel is a perpetrator of apartheid. B’Tselem, Israel’s leading human rights organization, concluded that Israel is a singular regime of Jewish supremacy from the river to the sea.

Now, with international attention once again focused on the region, many Palestinians understand the dangers of discussing partition, even as a pragmatic option. Many refuse to resuscitate this hollowed-out policy speak. In a message recently published anonymously, a group of Palestinians on the ground and in the diaspora state wrote, “The partition of Palestine is nothing but a legitimation of Zionism, a betrayal of our people, and the final completion of the Nakba,” or catastrophe, which refers to the expulsion and flight of about 750,000 Palestinians with Israel’s founding. “Our liberation can only be achieved through a unity of struggle, built upon a unity of people and a unity of land.” (emphasis added)

This opinion essay strongly resonated with me. It agrees with how I assessed the impact of the Nov. 4, 1995 murder of Yitzhak Rabin by an enraged, bigoted Zionist zealot with a gun. With the loss of Rabin, it dawned on me that (i) a reasonable two state solution is very likely not going to ever happen, and (ii) the Palestinian people were forever screwed. Misery, poverty, oppression and corruption (incompetence via dishonest government) would be their fate. 

That is how it has turned out so far. Now, almost 40 years later, international blither about a two-state solution still makes no sense to me. Maybe I am wrong, or will turn out to be. But right now it does not feel that way. 

There is no place left for

a Palestinian state

Draft letter to Joe Biden

I plan to send a letter to Joe warning about the damage that current US policy toward Israel can cause to US democracy and civil liberties. I avoided talking about a cease-fire, humanitarian aid to Palestinians, dealing with hostages and other specific policies. Instead, this letter is focused on (1) the damage to Biden’s campaign that US policy toward Israel might cause, and (2) the possible consequences of DJT being re-elected. Is that the best focus? Any comments, corrections, suggestions? 

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

I have incorporated comments into some revisions. This is the draft I will mail to Biden today.

FINAL DRAFT

April 1, 2024

The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20500

Re: The 2024 election & Israel policy

Dear President Biden,

As you might imagine, the 2024 presidential electoral college election could be very close. One of maybe a dozen issues or factors, could tip the election to Trump. In turn, that could easily lead to the end of democracy, civil liberties and the rule of law as we have known it at least since the passage of civil and voting rights legislation in the 1960s.

Unfortunately, it is clear that the American experiment in self-governance is on the verge of failing and collapsing into some form of a kleptocratic radical right tyranny. Evidence of an authoritarian threat in the public record is abundant and undeniable. Some Americans see the severity and urgency of the radical right authoritarian threat, but many cannot.

Some of the issues that could give the White House to Trump in 2025 are out of your control. But some are not. One issue you control that could be necessary to tip the election to Trump is US policy toward Israel. You are aware of the bitterness that surrounds this issue. It is tearing the Democratic Party apart. It also deeply alienates or offends independent and other voters who sincerely believe that US policy is complicit in genocide against the Palestinian people. I am one of those voters.

US policy must somehow tie US military aid and political support to Israel implementing an immediate ceasefire, allowing unrestricted humanitarian aid into Gaza, and stopping the ongoing genocide against Palestinian civilians. Absent those bare minimum steps, the US continues to forfeit its moral standing and authority, basically obviating a civilized outcome to the endless, bloody Israel-Palestine misery. Of course, that assumes that our moral standing and authority is not already irretrievably dissipated. It is very late in the game for US policy toward Israel to come to its senses.

Unjustifiable and shockingly immoral as US policy toward Israel arguably is, the re-election of Trump presents a far worse moral and human catastrophe. He is a grave threat to democracy and human well-being. If American democracy falls to Trump’s corrupt, radical right authoritarianism, what is left of democracy in Israel will fall to a radical, bigoted Zionist theocracy. That is almost guaranteed. The theocratic threat to democracy in Israel is obvious and undeniable. So is the threat to the Palestinian people of another Trump presidency.

Much worse than that, Democracies in Europe and elsewhere will fall in due course if America degenerates into some form of a kleptocratic dictatorship-Christian theocracy-plutocracy. With an eye on the enormity of the American authoritarian threat, it is clear that Israel does not know what is best for Israel. It certainly does not always act in the best interests of America. You are no doubt aware of all of this, which is well-documented.

US policy that constitutes no daylight between the US and Israel is catastrophically flawed for both the US, Israel and human-well being. That basis for Israeli foreign policy could wind up throwing the election to Trump. No one can deny that with certainty. Later, the entire human race could enter into a long period of worldwide authoritarianism, human misery, poverty, bigoted oppression and endless climate disasters. One can look to China and Russia to see one possible long-term outcome for our species.

The threat of bigoted, corrupt, American radical right authoritarianism should be terrifying to anyone who supports democracy, civil liberties and the rule of law. Please carefully reconsider US policy toward Israel and the starving Palestinian people. There is urgency to this. The window of opportunity gets narrower every day, assuming it is not too late already. The stakes in this election for democracy could not be higher. US-Israel policy is far less important than the outcome of the 2024 presidential election.

This letter is sent in the spirit of good will and constructive criticism. It also comes with a desperate hope that it is not already too late to limit some of the damage that US policy toward Israel has caused to democracy and world peace so far, maybe reversing some of it.

Sincerely, 

Germaine Descant

The GOP stands against environmentalism; GOP defends dark free speech in court

As we all know by now, TTKP (Trump Tyranny & Kleptocracy Party) leadership and elites are staunchly opposed to doing anything to try to reduce global warming, species extinctions or anything else pro-environment. The authoritarian monster also opposes efforts to support green energy, even when green energy is off the table for technical reasons. PBS station WLRN in Miami reports about how TTKP pro-pollution and pro-global warming policies play out quietly with as little publicity as possible:

DeSantis’ office quietly backed Florida ban on wind energy

Gov. Ron DeSantis’ office quietly helped write a bill to curtail wind energy in the state of Florida, email records provided to the Tampa Bay Times show.

A version of that bill is now awaiting DeSantis’ signature to become law, which will ban offshore wind turbines in state waters. It also proposes to delete the majority of references to climate change found in state law, the Times previously reported.

Florida lawmakers passed the bills, Senate Bill 1624 and House Bill 1645, in early March, even though the state has no operational wind farms because Florida generally has slower wind speeds.  

The governor’s office did not respond to emails asking about his staff’s involvement and why the governor was interested in banning wind energy. Collins and Altman did not respond to voicemails seeking comment. Neither did Rep. Bobby Payne, R-Palatka, who sponsored the House version of the energy omnibus bill.

This is another garden variety case of radical right authoritarian monsters virtue signaling to the brass knuckles capitalist carbon energy sector and to government haters. The TTKP protects that corrupt special interest sector of the US economy. And as usual in the face of inconvenient questions, the corrupt authoritarians involved are all relying on the popular demagogic KYMS (keep your mouth shut) tactic so the matter will fade away quietly with as little political damage as possible for the responsible, morally rotted scumbag politicians.  

The TTKP hypocrites in Florida (and everywhere else) sanctimoniously claim to oppose government interference in business, but they pass laws that more than simply interfere. They kill businesses they choose to hate and destroy. That is Republican Party style tyranny. 

____________________________________________________

____________________________________________________

The Guardian reports about state TTKP (Trump Tyranny & Kleptocracy Party) efforts to squelch honest speech about research on dark free speech on social media:

Missouri AG sues Media Matters as Republicans 

take on critics of Musk’s X

The attorney general of Missouri is suing Media Matters, a progressive watchdog group, alleging that it failed to turn over internal documents following its 2023 coverage of hate speech on the social media platform X. The head of the group says news outlets could be the next targets.

“Media Matters has pursued an activist agenda in its attempt to destroy X, because they cannot control it,” the lawsuit said, describing X – formerly known as Twitter – as a “free speech platform” that allows “Missourians to express their own viewpoints in the public square”.

The lawsuit, filed by Missouri’s attorney general, Andrew Bailey, on Monday, marks the second time that GOP officials have taken legal action against Media Matters to support Elon Musk, X’s billionaire owner. In November, the Texas attorney general, Ken Paxton, launched an investigation into Media Matters, describing the group as a “radical anti-free speech organization”.

“These state attorney generals, first Paxton and now Bailey, are directly responding to Musk’s pleas. They are helping him punish critics,” said Angelo Carusone, president of Media Matters. 

The rush to defend Musk against the organization, a newly anointed enemy of the right, underscores Musk’s rising profile among Republicans as a free-speech crusader. Carusone worries that the GOP’s embrace of Musk will help the billionaire stifle important criticism of X and the rightwing extremism and hate speech that proliferate there.  

Musk, whose takeover of Twitter began with the reinstatement of neo-Nazi users, courted rightwing leaders by positioning himself as a foot soldier in the fight against “liberal censorship” – in this case, content moderation policies on his own social network.

Again, we see the blatant double standards that America’s radical right anti-democracy authoritarians increasingly use to bludgeon inconvenient facts and truths, and political opposition. Free speech is for their speech, not for political opposition. This is what the TTKP deep state will do in spades if DJT is re-elected. This is what fascism looks like when corporate interests and government power combine to steamroll anything that looks even vaguely threatening to America’s radical authoritarian wealth and power movement. 

What price too high?

Many thoughts swirling around in my head this morning.  I got up early today to try and jot them down:

• Purity tests…  is the price ever too high to pay?
• Spock’s “the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few… or the one.”
• Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayer’s “Will this institution survive the stench that…" 

*    *    *

Let’s get into the weeds now.  Let’s talk about principles, something that also may be thought of as “purity tests.” I have plenty myself, so I viscerally understand the concept.  I admire principles.  I respect them.  I know that no one arrives at them without serious contemplation, often many hard years in the making.  Principles are no small thing.  Totally get that. [SMH Yes]

The revered character, Spock, realized in the final moments of his life, that “the needs of the many outweighed the needs of the few… or the one.”  Now that’s a lofty principle; maybe the ultimate purity test.  The height of selflessness, I’d say.  Going outside the self and looking at the bigger picture.  I can get that too.

Sonia Sotomayer wondered if “tossing out the landmark rulings would tarnish the court's reputation and open the floodgates to other challenges to well-settled law.”

All interesting ideas to ponder.  I’d call them “bottom line” kinds of thoughts.  Now let’s look at the other end of the “idealism versus realism” spectrum.

*    *    *

When all is said and done, when the chips are finally down, does “idealism” really trump “realism?”  Should it?  We may not like it, the reality, but can we be that (I’ll call it) “unreasonable / stubborn / rigid / indeed “ideologically pure?”  Yes, there are things, personal things, that we will absolutely not compromise on. They are that important to us.  And there are things we know we must compromise on, like it or not.  And we never do (like it), even though we know it is for the greater good.  Is that the ultimate test?  What is done for the greater good?  Excellent question.

*    *    *

Well, that prologue took a while, and now that I’ve gotten you in the desired mindset, it finally brings us to my specific questions… almost. 😉

Yesterday I again had an exchange with a poster who believes that personal principles trump the greater stark reality.  Or so it seemed, to me.  Specifically, we were talking about being confronted with what the poster saw as “two bad choices” (Biden versus Trump).  The poster insists s/he will not vote for either; not be forced to pick between "the lesser of two evils," taking a stand on personal principles. Maybe in that poster’s mind s/he thinks, "does one more vote for or against really matter in the greater scheme of things?"  The answer seems like a “No, it won’t really matter.”  And still, another thing I can get.  Yes, I do get all these things.

Question: 

Which of the following do you agree/disagree with?  Give examples to support your belief:

1. Sometimes the price is “too high to pay” for our personal principles.
2. Principles always trump reality, including existential threats, no exceptions. 
3. Sticking to principles only is valid when those principles only affect oneself.
4. Never compromise your principles. It’s a matter of personal integrity, damn the consequences. 
5. Principles should/must be compromised when the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few… or the one.
6. Never allow “the perfect” to be the enemy of “the good.”

(by PrimalSoup)

Now, time for some coffee ☕.  Thanks in advance for thinking about these things, and commenting! 😊

The Compulsory Voting Debate

 MY vote is no. BUT there are many out there that think it's about time.

Compulsory voting might seem strange to Americans, where voting is a right but not a legal duty or obligation. But there are arguments in favor of making voting compulsory, as well as arguments against it.

https://www.findlaw.com/voting/how-u-s--elections-work/the-compulsory-voting-debate.html

Compulsory voting, as the name suggests, is a state or nation requiring all eligible voters to cast a ballot on election day. In countries that use compulsory voting, voters who don't cast a ballot may face legal sanctions.

Belgium was the first country to institute compulsory voting in 1892. Soon after, Argentina and Australia instituted mandatory voting laws. Brazil currently practices compulsory voting, although they exempt the following non-voters from legal consequences:

• Illiterate people
• Anyone over 16 and under 18 years old
• Anyone over 70 years old

Some countries that use compulsory voting also include exceptions. Some countries exempt people with disabilities, citizens living abroad, and various voting ages. Visit the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance for a list of countries with mandatory voting laws.

The Brookings Institution, the Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation, and Harvard Kennedy School (Brookings-Harvard working group) published a report on universal civic duty voting in 2020. The report advocates for instituting mandatory participation in elections in the United States. It imagines "an American democracy remade by its citizens in the very image of its promise...". Its underlying principle is that "high levels of participation are good for democracy."

The Brookings-Harvard working group sees voting as a civic duty. They compare its importance to jury duty and defending the country during wars. They suggest a fine of $20 for non-voters. Their goal is not to impose sanctions to penalize. Instead, they suggest a minor penalty to send a "strong message that voting is a legitimate expectation of citizenship."

The pros and cons can be found within the above link, but I am sure everyone here has their own opinions and why they would be for it or against it. State YOUR reasons.

American tyranny rising

Way back in December of 2022, Trump said he wanted to terminate the US Constitution. After there was some criticism for that moment of honest candor, he backtracked and lied, saying he did not say what he said. Last August, The Hill reported:

In a back-and-forth during the first 2024 GOP presidential debate between candidates Vivek Ramaswamy and Chris Christie, the latter brought up previous comments from former President Trump stating he wanted to terminate portions of the Constitution to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

“A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post in December 2022.

Trump later responded to backlash against the comments, which were related to X’s, the platform formerly known as Twitter, role in suppressing a story about Hunter Biden. The former president alleged his words were twisted by others.

“The Fake News is actually trying to convince the American People that I said I wanted to ‘terminate’ the Constitution. This is simply more DISINFORMATION & LIES, just like RUSSIA, RUSSIA, RUSSIA, and all of their other HOAXES & SCAMS,” Trump wrote in another Truth Social post, saying he meant that “steps must be immediately taken to RIGHT THE WRONG.”

In December of 2022, Politico commented:

Several of Trump’s fellow Republicans were critical of the post, but few condemned Trump himself or said it would be disqualifying for him to earn their vote — a lack of repudiation that has drawn criticism from Democrats.