Comments on: Conundrum of the Day: Palestinian Statehood

By: Ted Folkman

Ted Folkman — Thu, 19 Mar 2020 15:59:09 +0000

In reply to Gary Nehro. Gary, your comment made it just in under the wire. I am not occupying anything except my home office in Boston these days, and if I have a "cohort" it is news to me! Take it down a notch.

By: Ted Folkman

Ted Folkman — Thu, 19 Mar 2020 15:56:43 +0000

In reply to Elie Gertel. Elie, I haven't said anything about occupation in this post, or about Hebron, or about who is or is not an obstacle to peace. So I am not sure what you are talking about.

By: Ted Folkman

Ted Folkman — Thu, 19 Mar 2020 15:56:04 +0000

In reply to Yossi Halperin. Yossi, I haven't said anything at all about occupation, and I think support for a two-state solution is hardly appeasement. But it's a free country!

By: Gary Nehro

Gary Nehro — Thu, 19 Mar 2020 15:55:13 +0000

Sir, you are an occupier. No quotes. You and your cohorts are the most stubborn obstacle to peace. Instead of a two-state solution, Israel/Palestine should be one nation with everyone having the right to vote. Why does Mr. Gertel get to vote, and my cousins who live in Ramallah have no vote? It’s anti-democratic.

By: Elie Gertel

Elie Gertel — Thu, 19 Mar 2020 15:50:29 +0000

I live in the so-called occupied territories—a “settler.” Let me tell you something. We are not the obstacles to peace. This article is hogwash. Letters Blogatory and all of these hyper-liberal websites are not presenting the situation fairly. Come to the West Bank. Visit a “settlement.” And then visit the City of Hebron. Tell me if I am an “occupier.” You should be ashamed of yourself, Letters Blogatory.

By: Ted Folkman

Ted Folkman — Thu, 19 Mar 2020 15:49:36 +0000

In reply to Barry Chernick. Barry, it's a fair point! There is no doubt that since 2016 I have had more political content. I thought at one point about separating it onto another website. This post, however, was not meant to be political, but rather, a comment on a point that I've written about before (in the posts I've linked) having to do with how Palestinian statehood is treated in the US courts. But lesson learned! I think it is impossible to say anything about Palestinian statehood without being political or controversial, even without meaning to.

By: Yossi Halperin

Yossi Halperin — Thu, 19 Mar 2020 15:44:49 +0000

Let’s get real for once: In 1948, the UN offered Israelis and Palestinians a two-state solutions. The Israelis accepted and the Palestinians rejected it. The Palestinians then joined Israel’s neighboring Arab countries in vicious attacks to drive Israel to the sea. They tried and failed. Not once but three times BEFORE there was any “occupation” of Palestinian Territories. Caroline’s view is abhorrent and Ted chooses appeasement.

By: Barry Chernick

Barry Chernick — Thu, 19 Mar 2020 15:35:13 +0000

I am generally a fan of Letters Blogatory, but it’s getting too political for my tastes. However, I also find Caroline’s post highly offensive, and the suggestion that Israel is trying to secure all of the Coronavirus treatment resources borders on conspiratorial. I don’t think Ted was arguing that Palestinians don’t deserve resources, but Ted’s decision to turn this blog into a forum for discussing Middle East politics will naturally invite some misinterpretations. What next, Ted? Are you going to confront the conundrum of police racism?

By: Ted Folkman

Ted Folkman — Thu, 19 Mar 2020 12:48:34 +0000

No, I support a two-state solution. There is a difference between saying there should be a Palestinian state (there should, in my view) and saying there is a Palestinian state now, as a legal matter. On the second question, sometimes it is in the Palestinians’ interest for the answer to be “yes,” and sometimes it is in their interest for the answer to be “no.” That’s really my point.