Telling report on Noam by Ahmed Moor:
"The most interesting part of the lecture was the Q&A. Someone asked about the one-state solution and Chomsky responded that the one-state solution was better than the two-state solution, but that the no-state solution was better than either. He went on to provocatively suggest that no one has proposed a doable one-state model yet. What may emerge is a phased one-state model. Two-states first, then with normalization and integration, maybe one-state. But there was no way to go from here and now to one-state. I got the distinct feeling that Chomsky hadn’t updated his analytical framework while I listened; he spoke of the two-state solution as though it was somehow still possible to implement.
For the record, I disagree with his assessment. I’m pretty confident that the world which witnessed radical Soviet and South African restructuring will also see a radical Palestine/Israel restructuring.
Chomsky only took ten questions, but I managed to get one in. My question was:
“Press reports recently suggested that you intended to meet with Salam Fayyad. What’s your opinion of the view that he’s an imperial stooge, with no electoral legitimacy?”
The speaker tastefully avoided answering the question (no prevaricating – he just didn’t answer), which is a type of answer. Chomsky inadvertently provided some insight into the tight spaces he’s trying to maneuver. I have no doubt that he knows that Salam Fayyad is an imperial stooge, but his allegiance to two states leaves him with no good way to honestly confront that reality. Salam Fayyad is Israel’s partner for peace, and any believer in the two-state model can’t but rally behind the Occupation’s Administrator in Chief.
It’s like Harvey Dent said to Batman: “You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.” Noam Chomsky has now lived long enough to see himself loosely allied with the American imperial project in Palestine; Israel for the Jews, and Fayyadistan for the Hunched Henchmen."
There is not an iota of difference between Noam's 'solution' and Netanyahu's.
Gilad Atzmon explains the deep morality of the Helen Thomas solution (and makes Noam sound like a moral idiot):
"As it happens, most Western leaders support the Two State Solution, they believe that such a solution is fair and ethical. I wonder what is so ethical about it, the Two State Solution doesn't address the Palestinian Cause. It largely ignores the Palestinian Right of Return to their land, homes, villages, fields and orchards. It accepts the outrageous circumstances in which millions of Palestinian refugees will be left dispossessed forever.The wave of rolling on the floor laughing that immediately followed the Jew York Times lying Zionist report on Afghanistan mineral wealth ready to be stolen by the Americans to help pay for this War For The Jews is not appreciated by the worm whose name appears on the article. We've reached the point where laughing at the lies told to us is allowed, but we've not quite reached the point where we're allowed to point out that the Jews tell us lies to trick us into fighting wars for them. Only Mel can do that.
Most humanists seem to support the One State Solution, they are convinced that such a solution is fair and ethical. Again, I am rather perplexed here. As much as we accept that sharing the land is reasonable and ethical, it is completely foreign to Jewish ideology and Zionism in particular. Early Zionist immigrants were more than welcome to share the land with the Palestinian indigenous population. But they had a completely different plan in mind, they wanted a 'Jews only State'. They eventually ethnically cleansed the Palestinians (1948), Those who managed to cling to the land were eventually locked behind walls and barbed wire. The One State Solution dismisses the Jewish ideology. As much as I myself tend to support the One State Solution, I am fully aware of the fact that such a solution may become possible only when the Israeli Jewish population gives up its supremacist ideology. Needless to say that when this happens, the Jews in Palestine would become Palestinian Jews: ordinary people of Jewish ethnic origin who happen to live on Palestinian land.
Those who are repulsed by Helen Thomas' resolution, blame her for being discriminatory towards Jews. The truth of the matter is that Thomas' suggestion is not at all different or more discriminatory than the notorious Two State Solution. While Thomas suggests that millions of Jews would peacefully go back to their true home, the Two State Resolution suggests that millions of Palestinian refugees would be left with no home whatsoever. Clearly, the Israeli State mentions again and again that it would never allow Palestinian refugees to return to their land.
Considering the latest Israeli barbarian military operations, bearing in mind the disastrous starvation in Gaza, learning about the serious threat to world peace imposed by repeated nuclear threats made by Israel against its neighboring States and Iran in particular, we should move the discourse one step further. We better look at the Helen Thomas' solution."
The Nation is a cesspool of Zionism. The lites are terrified of BDS.