Que?

I don't know what I just read, but it was written by Alcalay. Clearly he's writing from the perspective that Zionism was an intrusive, disruptive movement has created an unjust balance of power in which the modern state of Israel runs on the subjugation and occupation of Palestinian land. Other than that, I couldn't understand most of the article. The quotes lacked enough context, there were many unexplained references, and the style was overly dramatic and confusing. I don't like phrases like "politics of the possible" (last words) because they sound really good without meaning anything.

In general, I'm picking up that the establishment of Israel disruptive the ancient and beautiful connection between the Arab world and Jerusalem. That this is lamentable is the only point I can agree on with the author. I don't think Israelis and Arabs equally demonize their others, I think Arabs do it way more. There, I said it. I don't think occupation is the main cause of the conflict, I think it's a regrettable set of circumstances that arose out of necessity. I'm terrified now of the consequences, because we're accepting this situation as the status quo.

I think the early Zionists were eager and willing, they thought it necessary, to be able to live in peace and harmony with their neighbors. Where is the post-modern skepticism of this author's whole narrative? My narrative is being challenged here, what about the narrative that Zionism is colonialist, expansionist, aggressive and apartheid? Why aren't we challenging the narrative that says terrorism is a result of occupation or that Zionists are denying Palestinians the right of self-determination? Nobody gives you rights, you have to earn them...without blowing yourself up.