Democrats, Israeli Solutions and a Sad Story

How a One-State Solution can Lead to a Two-State Solution for Israel

Those who have given up hope of there ever being a two-state solution establishing a peaceful Palestinian state alongside of Israel should recognize that if Israel is to continue as a democracy without a such a separate Palestinian state, its Palestinian population will ultimately have to be given the rights of Israeli citizens, including voting.  If this expansion of the electorate does not occur in such a “single Israeli state,” it would no longer be a democracy because apartheid would be necessary to maintain it as a Jewish state. That would be unacceptable to most Israelis.  Giving Palestinians the right to vote, however, in a single-state democracy would signal the end of Israel as a Jewish state because, based on birthrates, its non-Jewish population will eventually exceed its Jewish population.

That is why we do not want that to happen.  The logical solution is to have a separate peaceful Palestinian state alongside of Israel.  It is very sad that the Palestinians have repeatedly rejected such a two-state solution because accepting it would mean recognizing the permanent existence of the State of Israel and they are not willing to do that, in view of their dreams of controlling the entire country.  They may talk of wanting a two-state solution, but they offer no guarantees that such a solution would not be taken as just a step toward a single Palestinian state to replace Israel.  Such an attitude is unacceptable to Israel.

So Israel lives on, hoping for the day when the Palestinians see the light (as Jordan and Egypt have more or less done) and accepts the permanent existence of the State of Israel and agrees to have a peaceful state of their own beside it.  Meanwhile, until that happens, Israel continues its existence as a country with many Palestinians within the areas Israel would otherwise readily give up to them, and until then, who really have no nationality of their own.

Continuance of this situation leaves Israel a democracy for all its citizens except these “stateless” Palestinians.  It is a something they have brought upon themselves by their leadership’s refusal to acknowledge and recognize the permanence of the State of Israel. Negotiations toward a two-state solution are worthless without that.  It should not be part of any negotiations; it should be a pre-existing condition before negotiations are undertaken.

As for the United Nations recently condemning Israel in regard to its settlements (occurring because of the United States’ shameful efforts to appear even-handed and failing to use its veto), all the Palestinians have to do is to sincerely recognize the permanence of the State of Israel, and the accompanying problems like the settlements will quickly be resolved and they would soon have their own State.  Until then, Israel will remain a strong and proud nation unwilling to agree to the kind of two-state solution which would contain the seeds of its own destruction.  

Ultimately, the Palestinians might see that the only way to stop that encroachment is to truly recognize the permanent existence of the State of Israel.  Could it be that the best way for Israel to arrive at a true two-state solution, which is what they really want in order to preserve a Jewish majority in Israel, might then be for them to proceed as if that will never happen?  hat might bring the Palestinians and their leaders to their senses. 

Realistically, the existence of support for the present Palestinian intransigence by neighboring Arab and Muslim states, including armed groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, will delay this from happening.  Eventually, however, it will take place.   It won’t happen ow, though.    

Jack Lippman

                                       

A Sad, Sad, Story

There was a sad article in the papers the other day.  Jeffrey Slonim, a “star-friendly journalist,” took his own life a few months ago.  You can read the article by clicking here.  I am including it in the blog for two reasons.  As I see it after reading the article, he took his life for two reasons, both of which I have touched upon over the past few years in the blog. 

First, Slonim was a professional journalist, whose acclaimed work appeared in magazines such as Allure, for which he wrote over the past two decades.  Print media, as I have pointed out in recent postings, is shrinking on a daily basis, and Slonim was one of those caught in the firestorm of layoffs which is consuming the journalistic profession.  He was a talented writer now competing with many like him for space in an ever-smaller world of print. He had a lot on his mind, and he was no longer a young man.

All of this came on top of a rare blood disorder for which he had been under treatment since the mid-nineties.  His hematologists had recently taken him off the drug he had been on, Interferon, and put him on a newer medication.  Soon after, he began experiencing “dark thoughts” for which he was considering entering “counselling” and in fact was put under observation by his hematologist at a major New York hospital for two days. Shortly after his release, he took his life. 

In earlier blogs, I had written about all the caveats which appear in small, practically unreadable, print … and in hastily uttered “voice-overs” in those TV commercials for the new “wonder” drugs that the pharmaceutical companies want viewers to ask their physicians to put them on.  How many times does that language, in so many words, warn about the “dark thoughts” or suicidal ideation which Slonim experienced.  That, on top of what is happening to journalists, contributed to his suicide. It’s a sad article but worth reading.  Click here.

JL

                                               

A Direction for Democrats

On a TV show the other evening, I caught former Democratic Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer being interviewed.  He said a lot of things which made sense, particularly in view of the results of the 2016 General Election. 

 Brian Schweitzer

Schweitzer was pointing out how the Democratic Party has strayed from its New Deal days, when FDR pulled it out of almost three quarters of a century of repeatedly losing.  A party of the working man, the Democrats have traditionally been in favor of keeping inexpensive imports from eating away at American jobs.  The unions loved this approach.  Since Bill Clinton’s presidency, however, the Democrats have supported a global economy, epitomized by treaties such as NAFTA and others which brought low priced Asian goods into the United States. The unions drifted away from the Party, or perhaps the Party drifted away from the unions, during the past decade as it supported trade policies which were more traditionally Republican.  Without union muscle, as this blog has pointed out on several occasions, the Party was significantly weakened. 

Health Care is another area where Schweitzer pointed out the drift toward the right of the Democratic Party.  The Affordable Care Act is based on the Republican approach, practiced in Massachusetts by then-Governor Mitt Romney, in which insurance companies were the backbone of expanded health coverage for Americans. Obamacare did not follow the “single provider” route (government being the primary provider) which Medicare followed.  It took the more conservative Republican route in order to pick up Congressional support. This was a mistake.  Obamacare has nowhere near the popular acceptance as does Medicare and the blame lies with the Democrats for not being “Democratic” enough.   

This shifting of philosophy toward the center made Democrats indistinguishable from Republicans in many areas.  Given this sort of “parity,” they counted on special interest groups such as minorities, women and students to win elections for them.  As 2016 proved, it didn’t work, because the Party had given up its soul, the one that hearkened back to FDR and LBJ, and as large as these special interest groups might have been, those bothered by the attention paid to them formed a still larger group.  And they saw no reason to vote Democratic.

The future of the Democratic Party lies in not being a “G.O.P.- LITE,” but in supporting government programs aimed at benefitting the working man without being ashamed of doing so with taxpayer dollars, chiefly gotten from taxes on the wealthy, financial institutions and large corporations, all of whom benefit greatly from a healthy economy, regardless of what party is in power.

Providing an economic “safety net” is a legitimate function of government, and not a step toward socialism, as their opponents claim.   Health care should be a government-run program and not one benefiting insurance companies.  The government should become the friend and benefactor of small businesses, whose interests are really more allied to those of the working man than to the wealthy and the corporate giants.  The Democratic Party should be looking for those who believe in these things in developing new leadership, and as I have stated before, they must start doing so on the lowest levels, aiming at those Statehouse legislative districts all over the country which the Republicans had won by less than 5%.  

Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have pointed the way, and both are in the Senate to continue doing so.  The likes of Brian Schweitzer will continue speaking too.  Democrats must listen.  That is the direction the Party must take.  No more trying to be “G.O.P. – LITE” and appealing to the political center. 

Admittedly, I ultimately supported Hillary Clinton in the 2016 campaign.  Asked very early on if I was “comfortable” with her as a candidate, I responded that I was “uncomfortably for Hillary.”  Back in 2015, I actually was for Bernie Sanders, taking him to be a “stalking horse” for Elizabeth Warren.  I even had a “Bernie” bumper sticker on my car … but his positions on gun control ultimately caused me to desert him.  I also felt that the country would never elect an avowed Socialist as President … so I ended up backing Secretary Clinton.  That was a mistake. 

I should have stuck with Bernie and gone down with him in the primaries.  His loss was a much more principled one than Hillary’s.  The Democratic Party should be looking in the direction of Sanders, Warren and Schweitzer in forming it new leadership.

                                                      

HOW TO BE ALERTED TO FUTURE BLOG POSTINGS.

Many readers of this blog are alerted by Email every time a new posting appears.  If you wish to be added to that Email list, just let me know by clicking on Riart1@aol.com and sending me an Email.  

HOW TO CONTACT ME or CONTRIBUTE MATERIAL TO JACK'S POTPOURRI. 

BY CLICKING ON THAT SAME ADDRESS, Riart1@aol.com   YOU ALSO CAN SEND ME YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS TO BE PUBLISHED IN THIS BLOG AS WELL AS YOUR COMMENTS.  (Comments can also be made by clicking on the "Post a Comment" link at the blog's end.)

MOBILE DEVICE ACCESS.

DID YOU KNOW THAT www.jackspotpourri.com IS ALSO AVAILABLE ON YOUR MOBILE DEVICES IN A MODIFIED, EASY-TO-READ, FORMAT?   

HOW TO VIEW OLDER POSTINGS.                                                

To view older postings on this blog, just click on the appropriate date in the “Blog Archive” midway down the column off to the right, or scroll down until you see the “Older Posts” notation at the very bottom of this posting.  The “Search Box” in the right side of the posting also may be helpful in locating a posting topic for which you are looking.

HOW TO FORWARD POSTINGS.

To send this posting to a friend, or enemy for that matter, whom you think might be interested in it, just click on the envelope with the arrow on the "Comments" line directly below, enabling you to send them an Email providing a link directly to this posting.  You might also want to let me know their Email address so that they may be alerted to future postings.

Jack Lippman