It never ends.........

 BUT it's still a good thing, that even after 3 years, they are still sentencing these clowns. 

‘What the British did to DC will be nothing’: Megaphone-toting Jan. 6 rioter who led attack on Capitol police gets years in federal prison

A megaphone-toting Jan. 6 rioter who boasted on social media, ‘What the British did to DC will be nothing,” a day before leading an attack on U.S. Capitol police on Jan. 6 was sentenced to seven years in federal prison.

Taylor James Johnatakis, 40, of Kingston, Washington, was ordered to spend 87 months in prison and pay $2,000 in restitution. He was convicted in November of misdemeanor offenses, including trespassing, disorderly conduct offenses and engaging in an act of physical violence. He was also convicted of felonies, including obstruction, civil disorder, and assaulting and resisting officers. NBC News reported he had represented himself during trial and the judge didn’t buy his “bulls—” and “gobbledygook.”

In his sentencing notes, Senior U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth, a Ronald Reagan appointee, highlighted the more than 20 letters from Johnatakis’ friends and family praising his “good works, good nature, and good character.” But, in explaining his sentence, the judge said what Johnatakis did that day was neither First Amendment-protected activity nor civil disobedience.

“A society in which everyone does what is right by his own lights, where adherence to the law is optional, would be a society of vigilantism, lawlessness, and anarchy,” he wrote. “A person dissatisfied with the government or the law has various non-violent ways to express his or her views.”

“As the Court has said before, ‘the First Amendment does not give anyone the right to enter a restricted area or to engage in riotous activity in the Capitol,” he said. “It obviously does not give anyone the right to assault the police. Nor was the January 6 riot an act of civil disobedience, because it was violent, not peaceful; opportunistic, not principled; coercive, not persuasive; and selfish, not patriotic.”

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/what-the-british-did-to-dc-will-be-nothing-megaphone-toting-jan-6-rioter-who-led-attack-on-capitol-police-gets-years-in-federal-prison/

Did this judge really use the word “gobbledygook”  ?

Must be a new legal term. 

Bannon plays the God card; The stealth foreign agent in the house

The dark free speech campaign of DJT and his TTKP (Trump Tyranny & Kleptocracy Party) has gone all in on citing God as moral authority to vote for DJT and corrupt, bigoted Christian theocracy. Media Matters for America writes:

Steve Bannon: “There's empirical evidence” that Trump is 

an “instrument of divine providence”

Bannon: “He's doing God's will”

STEVE BANNON (HOST): They hate him because they understand your commitment to him and part of your commitment is you understand, wait for it MSNBC, wait for it, wait for it, no, don't, wait for it, he is an instrument of divine providence. Yep. He is. Of that there's no doubt. There's empirical evidence of that. This is one of the reasons people support him because they understand he’s doing God’s will to save this republic when all rationality said no, let me not do that, they win. Trump wouldn’t do that. Trump would never quit. Trump would never back down and that’s why they hate him and that’s why they must destroy him.

Hm, one can wonder what the empirical evidence is. It is probably a combination of the lie that there is empirical evidence that God wants DJT back in the White House coupled with the sad, frightening reality that some American adults actually believe that blithering nonsense lie is actual truth. ☹️

_________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________

PD linked to this 2018 article in a recent comment here. It is something I was unaware of about the powerful and rabidly pro-Israel AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee Policy Conference) political organization:  

It’s Time For AIPAC To Register As A Foreign Agent

AIPAC is one of the leading forces behind the Israel lobby, joined in recent years by the ascending Christians United for Israel. Other Jewish “pro-Israel” organizations are niche affairs, representing particular constituencies on the left or right. But it’s AIPAC that is the registered lobby on Capitol Hill, and it is AIPAC whose clout on matters relating to Israel exceeds the clout of the National Rifle Association on matters related to guns; while the NRA’s sway is almost entirely over Republicans, AIPAC has historically drawn its support from both parties. Is there any place but AIPAC that not only gets Mike Pence, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi in the same room, but also gets to hear them in near total agreement?

But there’s something strange, too, about AIPAC. Consider Vice President Mike Pence’s remarks at last year’s conference: “Every freedom-loving American stands with Israel — because her cause is our cause, her values are our values and her fight is our fight.”

How can America’s representatives declare that any other country’s fight — even one as close to us as Israel is — is our fight, its cause our cause, its values our values?

It’s precisely this kind of overidentification that George Washington warned against in his 1796 farewell address. “A passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils,” Washington said. “Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists… betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification.”

To protect against this kind of passionate attachment, the United States has laws in place that forbid foreign governments from wielding certain kinds of influence or lobbying. Every foreign country represented in Washington by foreign agents must register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Under its terms, the country in question is absolutely banned from participating in or influencing American elections. Every contact the agents have with Congress must be reported to the Department of Justice, along with how and where they spend their resources.

But it does not apply to the Israel lobby as represented by AIPAC, which is heavily involved in our political system, funding candidates who are perceived to be “good on Israel,” and defunding incumbents who fail to subscribe to the favored foreign state’s agenda.

How does AIPAC get away with it?

It gets away with it because AIPAC’s founder, I.L. Kenen, came up with a legal loophole by which AIPAC is defined not as a lobby for a foreign state but for Americans who support that state. It’s a critical distinction that makes AIPAC’s dominance over U.S. Middle East policy possible.

After Kenen retired, Israel and AIPAC took a rightward turn, and he saw the mistake he made. Toward the end of his life, Kenen was outraged by the AIPAC leadership with its unquestioning support of the occupation of the West Bank and the blockade against Gaza, and other right-wing Israeli policies. He hated what he saw as AIPAC using its political power to keep the United States government and other influential Americans and, perhaps most important, the media from straying from the Israeli line.

Not only was AIPAC making it hard for the United States to restrain the Israeli government, but it was also weakening forces inside Israel that were trying to do so. The Israeli peace camp needed the United States on its side, but thanks to AIPAC, the United States could not help our natural Israeli allies. Of course, when Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was actively seeking peace and an end to the occupation, that was the moment AIPAC chose to separate itself from Israel, resulting in Rabin’s blistering exhortation that it get the hell out of his way. By the time of his death, Kenen was thoroughly alienated from the organization.  

Now is the time to undo Kenen’s mistake. It is time to require AIPAC to register as what it is: a foreign agent.

Today, Netanyahu and AIPAC (which has kept the United States government firmly behind Netanyahu’s policies) have turned Israel into a source of dissension even among American Jews.

No, AIPAC is not a “pro-Israel” lobby. It’s the Netanyahu lobby and our laws should treat it as such, for Israel’s sake even more than our own. (emphases added)

Thinking about identity politics: Is it mostly good, bad, neutral or variable?

What is it?

Identity politics (IP) refers to politics that is centered around identities such as race, nationality, religion, gender, sexual orientation, social background, caste, and social class. 

IP is rooted in the experiences and struggles of marginalized or excluded social groups, such as racial minorities, women, LGBTQ+ individuals, and others facing systemic oppression. 

The goal is to promote greater self-determination, recognition, and political power for these groups, rather than organizing solely around traditional party affiliations or ideologies.

Identity is used as a tool to frame political claims, promote ideologies, and mobilize social and political action. This can involve appealing to a shared sense of authenticity, culture, or experience before oppression. 

One of America's original identity politics

Critics argue it can be divisive, leading to a "zero-sum competition" between different identity groups over who is the "least privileged." Some see it as undermining universal, class-based political movements.

Proponents argue identity politics centers the lived experiences of the marginalized and intersects with efforts to address systemic racial, economic, and other forms of oppression. 

The term gained prominence in the 1970s from social movements like feminism, civil rights, and LGBTQ+ activism. It has continued to evolve with new identity categories and intersectional perspectives. IP is a complex and contested concept with both proponents and critics.

Good or bad?

It seems reasonable to think that IP isn't all good or bad, but instead is variable. Instead, it probably significantly depends on major factors like (i) how the leaders and rank and file of an identity group go about politics, (ii) their policy goals, (iii) how much power the group has relative to groups who oppose it and groups neutral or sympathetic, and (iv) how people involved on both sides see the oppression or marginalization, which too is probably significantly or mostly contested. 

Lots of identities in that mess

Can it be weaponized?

Seems to me that IP already is weaponized. It is a key part of our polarized politics and all the demagoguery and dark free speech we are awash in. 

Various groups who now claim victimhood for past wrongs are facing major blowback from America's authoritarian radical right and some others. American demagogic authoritarian elites have figured out how to play the victim card themselves and taught their rank and file to feel the victimhood burn. Christian nationalists now claim severe persecution from alleged evil Democrats and pedophile socialists and existential threat from secularism, non-white minorities, women's rights and the allegedly threatening, evil LGBQT community. TTKP (Trump Tyranny & Kleptocracy Party) elites (and some others) howl in moral outrage about discrimination against White people persecuted by the horrors of affirmative action and identity politics. 

Weaponized White identity politics

Fear of the Great Replacement? 

One criticism of IP is that it amounts to a form of divide and conquer that constitutes a net detriment to society. Wikipedia comments: 

Those who criticize identity politics from the right see it as inherently collectivist (giving the group priority over each individual in it) and prejudicial .... Right-wing activist Jordan Peterson criticized identity politics and argues that it is practiced on both sides of the political divide: "[t]he left plays them on behalf of the oppressed, let's say, and the right tends to play them on behalf of nationalism and ethnic pride". He considers both equally dangerous, saying that what should be emphasized, instead, is individual focus and personal responsibility.

Those who criticize identity politics from the left, such as Marxists and Marxist–Leninists, see identity politics as a version of bourgeois nationalism, i.e. as a divide and conquer strategy by the ruling classes to divide people by nationality, race, ethnicity, religion, etc. so as to distract the working class from uniting for the purpose of class struggle and proletarian revolution.

From what I can tell, many or maybe most people are involved in some form of identity politics, with our without significant oppression or exclusion in the mix. 

Vox: Steve Bannon thinks identity politics are great for President Donald Trump. That’s what the president’s adviser told Robert Kuttner over at the American Prospect. “The Democrats,” he said, “the longer they talk about identity politics, I got ’em. I want them to talk about racism every day. If the left is focused on race and identity, and we go with economic nationalism, we can crush the Democrats.”

Does it have to be a zero sum game?

That's not obvious. Maybe at least sometimes to at least some extent, depending on how one defines the concept and analyzes it. For affirmative action and getting into competitive schools, some excluded White and Asian applicants feel unfairly discriminated against. Some feel they were used to make room for a less qualified affirmative action candidate. which is to their own detriment. That can feel like being on the losing side of zero sum to the people who got stung. But is detriment the case for society as a whole? Maybe the good in responding to IP to the benefit of a marginalized group at least sometimes has a social benefit(s) that outweighs individual detriments. 

Zero sum or not, given the human condition, IP is arguably often necessary for marginalized or oppressed groups to work collectively to come closer to equality for the group. In general, brass knuckles capitalist plutocrats, libertarians, authoritarian demagogues and maybe a lot of average people will howl in moral outrage at the evil of collectivism that puts a group above its and individuals generally. But maybe it isn't a moral outrage if that is the means necessary for better equality and better society. 

If IP improves the condition of a marginalized group, that improvement arguably benefits society more than it harms society in at least two ways. First, the group benefits from less marginalization and fairer treatment. Second, it shifts power from authoritarians to the democracy and people generally. If people and groups in power have the power to treat discriminate against and dehumanize targeted groups, that power can be turned against anyone or group by elite leadership of in-power groups (or ideologies like brass knuckles capitalism or Christian nationalism).

In essence, IP boils down to being another aspect of the endless war for power and wealth among people and groups of people. IP can be conducted in good will and good faith, or it can be corrupted and morally rotted like anything else in politics. So, IP can be mostly good, mostly bad, mostly neutral or variable, depending on the group, its tactics and its goals.

Banning Al Jazeera moves Israel one step closer to dictatorship

Defenders of Israel love to call it the Middle East’s only democracy. But democracies don’t censor the press.

Al Jazeera’s Gaza bureau chief, Wael Al-Dahdouh, prays during the funeral of his son Hamza Wael Dahdouh, also a journalist with the Al Jazeera television network, who was killed in a reported Israeli air strike in Rafah in the Gaza Strip on Jan. 7. Photo by Mohammed Abed/AFP/Getty Images

Fr. The Forward

By Eric Alterman April 2, 2024

By kicking the Qatar-based news service Al Jazeera out of the country, Israel has taken yet another significant step on the path to what is almost certainly its lowest point, in the eyes of the world, since its founding almost 76 years ago.

The decision was announced Monday, on the basis of a law, passed after Oct. 7 and recently renewed, which gives the prime minister and communications minister the authority to order the closure of foreign networks operating in Israel and confiscate their equipment if they are seen to pose “harm to the state’s security.” But while Al Jazeera poses a significant nuisance to Israel, it cannot be said to constitute any kind of genuine “threat.” 

Meanwhile, by banning the news service, Israel has shown itself ready to employ the typical tactics of an undemocratic dictatorship to keep its own people, and much of the world, in the dark about its own often-indefensible actions.

True, Al Jazeera does not report good news about Israel — or would not, if such news actually existed. It is, however, one of the only news services with reporters on the ground in Gaza unguided by IDF forces. While all the major Israeli news institutions carry the big stories — including Israeli attacks on hospitals, aid convoys and the killing Monday of seven World Central Kitchen volunteers — Al Jazeera is also there to perform the essential service of reporting the smaller, human-scale ones. 

For instance, they recently spoke to a Palestinian mother who recounted the story of carrying her 9-year-old son, who was battling hepatitis, out of Gaza City’s Al-Shifa Hospital on her back to escape a raid by Israeli forces; he died shortly thereafter. Unfortunately, Israel has given Al Jazeera reporters many, many thousands of opportunities to report stories of preventable civilian deaths like this — not to mention the stories of the estimated 75,000 Palestinians so far injured in the war.

It seems all but certain that the implicit threat of stories like these — that they will make Israelis question the war — is the real reason for Al Jazeera’s banning, not, as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wrote on X, allegations that the news service “actively participated in the Oct. 7 massacre, and incited against Israeli soldiers.” Communications minister Shlomo Karhi also accused Al Jazeera of “encouraging armed struggle against Israel,” but neither presented any evidence for their claims.

What was mostly unspoken, but apparent, was the role of far-right political pressure from within Israel: The extremist Knesset member Ze’ev Elkin said it was “too bad that the prime minister delayed closing the station at the beginning of the war.” 

Israel had good reasons for delaying that decision: It needed to maintain cordial relations with the Qatari government, on which it depended as the mediating power coordinating negotiations over the fate of the Hamas hostages. As Israel’s leadership seems to care less and less about the fate of those still captive in Gaza, that reasoning has apparently lost power.

Pro-Israel apologists will no doubt argue that Arab-led governments, including Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, have also either closed down Al Jazeera in their countries or blocked their broadcasts.

True — but is that analogy really comforting? Don’t American Jewish leaders call Israel “the only democracy in the Middle East?” It’s one thing to censor particular reports that put one’s soldiers in harm’s way in wartime. No one can argue with that. But to shut down a news service because you don’t like its political orientation? That is the stuff of dictatorship — the kind of authoritarian behavior the same Jewish leaders love to condemn in those Arab governments.

The only opposition to the Knesset vote giving the government the power to shut down whatever news agency it wishes came from the representatives from the two Israeli Arab parties, Hadash-Ta’al and Ra’am. “Citizens of Israel, they are trying to put you under a cognitive siege … to block information about things being done in your name,” said Hadash-Ta’al MK Aida Touma-Sliman before the vote, in which the measure passed 75-10. Netanyahu offered a backhanded, unintentional agreement with that complaint when he explained, “It is impossible to tolerate a media outlet, with press credentials from the Government Press Office and offices in Israel, acting from within against us, certainly during wartime.”

The decision inspired the same sort of familiar criticism that Israel has shown itself more than happy to ignore in recent decades, as the nation has traveled further and further down the road to unapologetic illiberalism. 

The Committee to Protect Journalists described the law as “posing a significant threat to international media,” and said it contributes, in Israel, “to a climate of self-censorship and hostility towards the press.” Emily Wilkins, president of the National Press Club, and Gil Klein, president of the National Press Club Journalism Institute, issued a joint statement calling the action “reminiscent of actions taken by illiberal governments to crack down on journalism they felt threatened their hold on power.” 

The Association for Civil Rights in Israel, which describes itself as the oldest and most influential civil and human rights organization in Israel, called the law a “grave infringement on freedom of expression and freedom of the press,” as “it also prohibits the court from overturning a non-proportional decision, effectively tying the court’s hands from intervening in decisions regarding the closure of media outlets. This is a direct continuation of the judicial overhaul, harming the courts and media outlets, all while cynically using war and security justifications.”

(Statements of “concern” from both the White House and the U.S. State Department came without, of course, any hint of consequences for the unobstructed flow of American economic and military aid to Israel, even as the country continues to thumb its metaphorical nose at President Joe Biden and his representatives.) 

In an official response, Al Jazeera promised that Israel’s “slanderous accusations will not deter us from continuing our bold and professional coverage,” and said it would reserve “the right to pursue every legal step.” The organization also insisted that it would hold “the Israeli Prime Minister responsible for the safety of its staff and Network premises around the world, following his incitement and this false accusation in a disgraceful manner.” 

It was a reminder that Israel has repeatedly proven more dangerous to Al Jazeera than vice versa. Few will have forgotten the killing, in 2022, of the widely respected Palestinian American Al Jazeera journalist Shireen Abu Akleh by Israeli forces during a raid on Jenin in the occupied West Bank. In Gaza, in December, an Israeli strike killed an Al Jazeera cameraperson; Al Jazeera’s Gaza bureau chief, Wael Dahdouh, was also injured. The following month, another airstrike killed Dahdouh’s son, who was also working for Al Jazeera. Yet another one killed Dahdouh’s wife and daughter along with another of his sons and his grandson. The Committee to Protect Journalists estimates that 95 members of the media have been killed since the war began, virtually all of them Palestinian.

In the first case, the Israelis insisted that Dahdouh’s son was a member of the terror group Islamic Jihad; Al Jazeera denied the charge. The IDF offered no explanation for the second.

Given the lack of concern for the lives of innocent civilians that the Israeli military has shown in the Gaza campaign as it pursues its Hamas targets, it is at least conceivable that these deaths were all coincidental. But it is evidence of just how far Israel has degraded itself, morally and politically, that the accidental killing of an unprecedented number of journalists is the best possible interpretation one can bestow on the actions of “the world’s most moral military.”

That degradation is about to grow. By moving to shield Israelis from the news absorbed, in both horror and sadness, by the rest of the world, the government is drawing Israel to a darker place than any of us might wish to see it go, or one we could have imagined just a few short years ago.

Naval News updates

U.S. Navy Submarine First In World Fitted 

With Silent Caterpillar Drive

Submarines use stealth to dominate the seas, presenting an illusive yet deadly threat. Now U.S. Navy submarines will take stealth to a new level. American submarines will now be fitted with magnetohydrodynamic drive.

American submarines will further extend their advantage in the undersea domain. In the first of a kind, the U.S. Navy has fitted a new form of propulsion, magnetohydrodynamic drive (MHD), to a Virginia class submarine. This promises to make the submarine virtually undetectable, the holy grail of naval warfare.

The Magnetohydrodynamic drive is being developed under the PUMP program by DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), first reported in 2023. Water passing through it is accelerated by means of a magnetic field using superconducting magnets. This is often likened to the way a caterpillar crawls leading to the colloquial term ‘caterpillar drive’.

USS Montana

The new propulsion may be fitted to more submarines if the trials are successful. These are likely to include new-build Virginia class attack submarines and the future ‘SSN-X’ type. It is unlikely to be fitted to the Columbia Class ballistic missile submarines (SSBN) however as this would likely constitute a first strike capability. There is no reason to make a nuclear deterrent submarine so stealthy if it is only intended for retaliatory strikes.

USS Montana is expected to undergo sea trials on the Penobscot River in Maine. This will make it more difficult for the Russian Navy to observe the tests.

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

US Navy Achieves Engine Testing Milestones For LUSV Program

The U.S. Navy’s Large Unmanned Surface Vessel (LUSV) program reached pivotal milestones earlier this year after several industry teams successfully completed extended reliability demonstrations of four different engine configurations, officials announced today.

LUSV with an optionally-manned bridge

(Image by Austal Shipbuilding, Australia) 

The four 720-hour [30 days] tests demonstrated the capability and durability of different engine plants to operate for extended periods without human intervention – a critical enabler for advancing unmanned maritime operations and the Navy’s manned-unmanned Hybrid Fleet concept.

Mandated by a congressional requirement in the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act, the engine testing milestones must be completed before the LUSV can proceed into a formal development phase. An engine system only qualifies for use in the program after successful demonstration events.

Demonstrations of each engine configuration took place over 720 continuous hours. No human intervention or preventative/corrective maintenance on the equipment was permitted during this time.

Four teams have successfully completed their separate 720-hour testing milestones.

LUSVs will supplement the Fleet’s missile magazine capacity as part of the Navy’s Distributed Maritime Operations (DMO) concept. Currently, the LUSV is envisioned as a vessel greater than 200 ft. in length with a full load displacement of approximately 1,500 tons. LUSVs are intended to be low cost, high endurance, modular USVs that can employ a variety of payloads.

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

US Navy Restarts Snakehead LDUUV Program

The US Navy’s largest Submarine-launched UUV is set to resume testing this year after a pause.

The US Navy plans to restart its Snakehead Large Displacement Unmanned Underwater Vehicle (LDUUV) program this year. Snakehead is a modular, reconfigurable, multi-mission underwater vehicle that can be deployed from a submarine

The Snakehead LDUUV program witnessed a lull in activity following a lack of funding for the program in FY23. Following the completion of the first Phase, the program was originally scheduled to move forward with its second Phase,

This year, the Navy will restart demonstrations and experiments with the single prototype it currently has in inventory. Testing will include deployment of the system from surface vessels of opportunity.

Cheryl Mierzwa, Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division Newport’s technical program manager for the Snakehead Large Displacement Unmanned Undersea Vehicle, christens the underwater vehicle at the Narragansett Bay Test Facility in Newport, Rhode Island, on Feb. 2, 2022

(I hope that is cheap bubbly)

Is it just me, or does future warfare seem to be destined for remotely operated drones first, people second?

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