J Street is driving the wedge in the Jewish community, decrying a statement by the Israel Project that describes the removal of settlements from the West Bank as "ethnic cleansing."
Shocking that Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi, the head of the Israel Project, which began a few years back in order to enhance Israel's image among influentials in the U.S., would defend the claim to the JTA. Great that J Street is grabbing this issue and talking about
"fear-mongering." It understands the crisis that the Israel lobby has
produced in the American Jewish community.
"I get up in the morning and say 'How can I attack the Iranian nuclear
threat," said Mizrahi. J Street "gets up in the morning and says 'How
can I attack other Jewish organizations?'"
There goes the monolith.
It certainly is. Jewish people have the right to live in the Land of Israel. I would never want to see what happened in Gaza again it really broke my heart
So, kids, remember the new strategy. When you're trespassing on someone else's land and they tell you to leave, accuse them of "ethnic cleansing"! What a great way to completely devalue the entire concept. And so utterly hypocritical for a culture that likes to accuse other people of diminishing the importance of the Holocaust when that term is used to describe genocidal actions elsewhere in the world.
Craig, I believe the land is Jewish land. In fact these are Jewish towns we are talking about. That's the whole point. So it wouldn't be fair to cleanse the land of Jews. Especially since of our historic attachment to the land.
in this case unfortunately for your viewpoint, possession is not 9/10ths of the law. there is something called international law, and ethnic fairytales, even when pamphletted or do not imbue a single party to overrule decades of hard won international agreements. so to recap, stealing and holding it does not equate to owning it
Nanuk, I do believe that the land is Jewish under international law, even though international law is fickle and can really go either way in a lot of things. Jewish people are not thieves. I really don't understand because Arabs build all the time but you don't call that stealing. Give the Jewish people the same rights as the arabs and let us build.
"Jewish people have the right to live in the Land of Israel " Jewish people have a right to live anywhere they chose, so long as they don't live on stolen land.
Well, it is ethnic cleansing. That's how I explain to my friends how serious the situation is: "You realize that to make a two state solution work, the Israeli military would have to ethnically cleanse Jews from much of the occupied territories? Any Israeli government that tried to do that would probably collapse instantly, and the PM might even be assassinated like Rabin." The Israeli government, with enthusiastic support from armchair Zionists in the US, have dug themselves into a very deep hole that I don't think they can get out of.
"I do believe that the land is Jewish under international law." The land within per 1967 borders is Israeli under international law. There is no international law that recognizes Jewish land. "Jewish people are not thieves." Jewish people aren't but Israel has stolen land and given it to Jews. "I really don't understand because Arabs build all the time but you don't call that stealing. " That's because Arabs haven't stolen land and built on it. "Give the Jewish people the same rights as the arabs and let us build." You have right, within the 1967 borders. Outside of that is illegal. Immediately after the 1967 war, your highest legal authority, Theodor Meron, warned your leaders that a that “civilian settlement in the administered territories”―that’s what they call them―”contravenes the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention.” There's no point complaining now and you can;t use the excuse that your government didn't know.
Shingo, I am going to try to limit my responses to your posts simply because I dont think it will be effective attempting to respond to you. Israel did not steal land. It should not be illegal for Jews to build in any borders anywhere in the world. It's called ethnic cleansing when you force a certain ethnicity completely out of the land until it is cleansed of those people. Theodor Meron was wrong, there are many dissenting opinions.
"Israel did not steal land. " Yes it did. In 1948, Israel drove 800,000 Palestinians from their homes. At the time, Arabs owned 50% of the land and Jews only 7%. Israel never paid for the land that belonged to the Arabs or allowed them to return. "It's called ethnic cleansing when you force a certain ethnicity completely out of the land until it is cleansed of those people." Which is what Israel did in 1948. It is not ethnic cleansing however, when any population builds illegally on land that does not belong to it. In fact, most settlers in the occupied territories are given money to build there, as opposed to Israel properer, where they buy land and build on it like the rest of the civilized world. "Theodor Meron was wrong, there are many dissenting opinions." Theodor Meron was the highest legal authority in the land. The World Court unanimously endorsed his conclusion as did the Israeli High Court. You can claim he's wrong if you like, but your opinion is irrelevant. Wanting it to be so does not make it so.
Shingo, Again I'll try to limit this to lesson the contact points between you and I. -More Jews were cleansed from Arab countries than Arabs from the Jewish country -The land is under dispute and I do believe it belongs to the Jewish nation -Theodor Meron was incorrect in his ruling. I support dissenting opinions from Theodor Meron and also the World Court
If you have a problem with the two state solution, go for one state, then. Otherwise Israeli citizens can't live in Palestine.
Unless you can provide a legal opinion that contradicts Theodor Meron, the World Court and the Israeli High Court, your argument is rubbish. Theodor Meron, the World Court and the Israeli High Court. are legal authorities, not dissenter. Israel's vilation of these findings is beyond dispute. As for your other lies: "More Jews were cleansed from Arab countries than Arabs from the Jewish country " Most left of their of accord over a period of years. They were not driven from their homes by threat of massacre. "The land is under dispute and I do believe it belongs to the Jewish nation " No country nor the UN regard the land as disputed. That is why there is a UN Resolution 242 for Israel to withdraw from "occupied territories"
Shingo, There are many legal opinions that contradict Theodor Meron. Neither you or I are lawyers however. Suffice to say there are plenty of dissenting opinions. Jews were driven from their homes in Arab countries by threat of massacre. The land is under dispute. The land is disputed. The territory is disputed territory.
LOL. I never thought of it that way, but that is an accurate description. They want to remove all the Jews from the West Bank. Now let me see, what is the term for removing all members of a particular ethnic group from an area?
We're talking about illegal settlements in the West Bank. That is not legally part of Israel and it's ridiculous to suggest that it is. I certainly agree that Jews should be able to live in the West Bank, just as they should be free to live anywhere. The problem is that when a Palestinian state is finally formed, Israel and the settlers will argue that these settlements belong to Israel even though they are in Palestinian territory. Ultimately, either these settlements should be evaculated or the people living in them should accept that they are living in the Palestinian state under Palestinian law, not in the state of Israel.
"They want to remove all the Jews from the West Bank. " Another lie. The Palestinian authority has said the settlements can stay so long as the settlers are prepared to live under a Palestinian government. "Now let me see, what is the term for removing all members of a particular ethnic group from an area?" Look up 1948 and Nakba. Glad to see you want to learn. There's a good boy. Of course, if all members of a particular ethnic group refuse to obey laws and recognize the government of that territory, then that makes them illegal immigrants. BTW. Israel's foreign minister wants to force all the Arabs to leave Israel. That would involve removing all members of a particular ethnic group from an area right?
Theodor Meron was the lawyre for the Israeli equivalent of the U.S. State Department, or the UK Foreign Office. The "highest legal authority" in a country is the Supreme Court of that country, not the lawyer for a ministry or cabinet department. If you are going to keep plagiarizing Chomsky (the source of that mis-identification) you should at least have the sense to check your facts before dumbly what he says. If by "World Court" you mean the ICJ, I read their opinion. It proves what a joke the ICJ is. They didn't bother to evaluate the law or the evidence, they just assumed that Israel was guilty. Though in a case about the anti-terrorism fence, I finally found an argument for why the Palestinians are protected persons under the 4th GC. Not one that convinces me, but at least he's making an effort. He says they are protected people because the West Bank was taken from Jordan and Jordan is an HCP. Of course the problem with that is that Jordan was an occupier too, having taken the land from the nascent Arab nation that the U.N. was making there for the people who later called themselves "Palestinians". http://www.zionism-israel.com/hdoc/ICJ_KOOIJMANS....
Shingo, I think ethnic cleansing is apropos but Nakba could work too except that as far as I know Nakba translates to catastraphe which I do believe ethnic cleansing of Jews would be. "Ethnic Cleansing" is an acceptable term to use for forcing all Jews out of a certain area. I do also believe that there are many arabs that would like to expel all Jews from the land just as there are many Jews that would like to expel all Arabs. The comment from the PA minister about Jews being allowed to stay in our land if sovereignty for Arabs was imposed on us I think is a great start. It's those sort of steps that build common understandings.
Not quite. They want to remove all Israeli settlements, which amount to outposts of Israel in Palestinian territory. Personally, I think that if the settlers are willing to live where they are as citizens of the future Palestinian state, under Palestinian law, then they should be allowed to remain. However, they insist that they are Israelis, so they should move back into Israel.
If Israel truly believes that it has a right to the territory, then it is guilty of apartheid. It wants the land but it wishes not to give the full rights of citizenship to the Palestinians who live on that land. That is the basis of apartheid. If Israel is truly a democracy and it truly believes that the land of the occupied territories belongs to Israel, then it must give all the inhabitants of the land it claims as its own the full rights of citizenship. Israel refuses to do that. It does not get to have it both ways.
You are conflating Jews with Israelis. The terms are not interchangeable. It is not ethnic cleansing to remove foreign (Israeli) citizens from land that is not rightfully theirs. Saying that the land in the occupied territories belongs to all Jews does not make it so.
RE: "Especially since of our historic attachment to the land." SEE: "Ancient Israeli Myths Deter Peace", By Robert Parry, 07/09/09 (EXCERPT) The rationale for formally designating Israel a Jewish state – as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu now demands – rests on three religious-political pillars: God’s purported covenant with Moses instructing the ancient Israelites to conquer the land, the injustice of the Roman-era Diaspora that supposedly removed them centuries later, and the brutal persecution of European Jews in the Holocaust. Yet, two of these pillars – Moses conveying God’s covenant to the Israelites and the Roman Diaspora – appear based on almost no historical reality, the stuff of legend and possibly even lies that crumble under any serious scrutiny. Normally, such ancient stories might be regarded as harmless tales that some people treasure as part of their Judeo-Christian faiths, except that Netanyahu’s new demand means that these myths now threaten peace in the Middle East and conceivably could push the modern world into more bloody warfare. Therefore, they must be given fresh examination…. ENTIRE ARTICLE – http://www.consortiumnews.com/2009/070809.html
Your conception of 'right to the Land of Israel' is fanatically racist and delusional rights are not formed through religious fanaticism. you have no right to the Occupied territory. go back inside the Green line and leave the Palestinians in peace. you thief
it is not fickle, international law in this case is quite clear. so you advocate the right of return?
and those dissenting opinions are steeped in ideology this is not just Meron's opinion this is the 1979 State Dept. Memo international law the UN ICJ World Court etc. only thieves and liars like yourself Eitan, justify the continued colonization of Historic Palestine
Jews were not driven from Arab countries by threat of blah blah the issue of the Jewish exodus is not clear 100% the case of the Iraqi Jews is a good example there are plenty of different factors and this all happened after the Palestinian expulsion they are not the same cases. the Jews got to go to a State called the 'jewish state' and the palestinians were kicked out during War and had to go into refugee camps not the same stop lying
stop murdering Palestinian children 10 to 1, and civilians in general 5 to 1. stop stealing their land and water. stop demolishing their homes. stop being racists and bigots and chauvinists stop citing the Torah as a justification to keep stealing their land and colonizing them maybe then there will be reconciliation
The Israeli Supreme Court is not finally determinative as the US Supreme Court is in the USA. And Israel does not have a Constitution as source for decision. It has "Basic Laws" which in now way compare, and are constantly flouted by the Israeli government and all its arms.
The dissenting opinion is just that in any judicial decision, that is, it's not the prevailing and governing law. This is true even in a 5-4 decision, no matter if the four dissenting judges file 4 different dissents or one with all four signing on to it.
Eitan, Its a mistake to confuse the issues of title with the issues of sovereignty. Sovereignty is a description of the jurisdiction and the basis of governance. Modern governance theory is based on the concept of "consent of the governed". There is never unanimity, but there is a critical mass of acceptance, usually based on majority or super-majority rule. The definition of jurisdiction must be designed to be viable, or else the entity will be STRUCTURED to be unstable, in conflict. Title on the other hand, is a statement of individual consent by a reasonable person test to have rights to permanent (ownership) or temporary (leasehold) to use land or other property exclusively (or under one's control). To equate the two concepts is to adopt a neo-fascist approach, literally. It is the overstepping that both Zionist expansionists, and Palestinian nationalists engage in rhetorically. It is NOT a sober, moderate approach.
Eitan, That is accurate. The status of the land is disputed. On disputed land, one's title is imperfect, and one runs the plausible risk that their property will no longer be their's, regardless of what they assert. There is a DIFFERENCE between your assertion that the land is Jewish, and the land is disupted. If the legal status conflicted with your assertion, would be you be willing to revise your understanding, and state so publicly if you became confident that that was the case?
I agree that Queria's statement will contribute to a resolution. It artfully removes one of the key rational objections to Israel's insistence that it must defend the settlers, and annex the land to Israel.
Strahl, you're not understanding. God says the land is for Jews so they're perfectly justified in killing as many Arabs as they can if they're doing God's will. Who gives a damn about lowly man-made laws?
They're not being removed because they're Jews, they're being removed because they're Israelis. Israelis (like any other nationality) cannot live in any other country apart from Israel, unless they have the permission of the state they want to live in. They can't live in another country and follow Israeli laws.
The scary thing about Eitan is that whereas Thom, Jake etc. know their arguments are flawed, Eitan actually believes in them.
Here's the whole book of the Israel Project's current hasbara talking points: http://www.newsweek.com/id/206021 A to Z on how to answer any question. Interestingly, it says the pro-Palestinian students on US campuses are better informed than the Pro=Israel students and less emotional too. Inter alia, it also states that Arabs have equal rights in Israel, and that the pro-Palestine students use the fact of Israeli democracy and shared US values as "an excuse" to demand more from Israel. Lots of lessons on how to paint things as set-up and if that's set-up is demolished, how to divert from the issue being addressed, e.g., as by referencing settlement removal as ethnic cleansing.
"The status of the land is disputed. " The only people who refer to it as disputed is Israel. Every other nation and legal entitiy have judge it to be occupied and the settlements to he illegal. All of them.
The removla of the ilegal settlement from the occupied territories would not be a catastraphe, it would be justice under international law. There is plenty of room for the settlers inside Israel.
Someone leaked The Israel Project's (TIP) racist book on Newsweek. It is not supposed to be distributed or published. Read this guy from the New Jersey Jewish News about it: http://www.njjewishnews.com/njjn.com/070909/opedC... He wrote: If you can’t convince ’em, accuse ’em. . . . TIP calls that “the best settlement argument” in its 2009 Global Language Dictionary, a manual on how to talk to journalists and opinion molders about the Arab-Israeli conflict. I received a copy of the settlements chapter over the electronic transom, but the 140-page document is closely held and not for the public or the press to see. Look for more to begin leaking out soon. It's 116 pages, and GUESS WHAT? It's full of suggested responses to use that have plastered the comment section of this blog. Download it before it gets removed and twitter it. People need to see what the right-wing TIP does.
Citizen, It doesn't state that stuff as if it means it. It says, specifically, to say it so that you will seem reasonable when you argue with people. It is one glorious propaganda rag.
Thom, you clearly cannot dispute these rulings without straw manning the argument or insulting them. Frustrates you that much? Clearly. Your argument fails! Try harder.
there's also a 'hasbara handbook' that's given to Jewish students. It dedicates a whole section to how to score points at a debate without actually contributing to it.
I got it. This is hilarious. Zionists really are a cult.
I thought Judaism was a religion and not an ethnicity. So how can removing settlements from the West Bank be consider ethnic cleansing ?
about 2 years ago I acquired a copy of the 2002 version of the WUJS Hasbara manual (it has since been revised). I took my copy to a Mearsheimer & Walt book tour event. The event was packed with members of a nearby synagogue, led by the president of a regional AIPAC (so his name tag stated). The AIPAC leader sat directly in front of the podium so that Mearsheimer & Walt had to be aware of his presence. Other members of the group seeded each table — every other seat at each table was a someone antagonistic to Mearsheimer & Walt. It was possible to tell they were part of an organized group because they all had red and grey tri-fold fliers with talking points. This was my first encounter in such a situation. I took my seat, nibbled at my chicken salad, and placed my hasbara manual face-up beside my knife and below my water glass– Emily Post must be obeyed! The person to my right was not amused. She was very, very angry. After the speeches & Q&A, when Walt & Mearsheimer signed my copy of "Israel Lobby," I showed them my copy of the Hasbara manual. John asked me how I'd gotten it and gave me his email to send him a copy. I did. Jewish college students on the campuses in my city are highly organized. I have seen them at events (ie. when the Syrian ambassador spoke on a campus) with a new version of the Hasbara manual tucked under their arms, and I watched as those same students dominated the Q&A session, just as the persons with the talking points fliers dominated the Q&A at the Walt & Mearsheimer event. So what's the problem? Free speech at work, no? One rabbi thinks pro-Israel indoctrination of Jewish youth may be going too far: http://www.rhr-na.org/opinion/this-is-zionism And a recent youtube of Jewish American young people in Israel scores poorly contrasted with Iranian young people who are fighting for their rights.
Ha! I love that it says "Not For Distribution or Publication" and Newsweek published it anyway.
Um, justice?
Yeah, sorta like the ethnic cleansing of Algeria in 1962 or the ethnic cleansing of Korea in 1945. Those are, of course, only two of the largest examples. Almost all of Africa and Asia experienced horrible ethnic cleansings in the post-WW2 period.
I agree!
The status is still disputed. There are pre-existing Jewish claims to long held land in the West Bank, and a very large portion of the land was state and/or unoccupied. And, CURRENTLY, many of the residents have lived there for a full generation. It is their home. They may owe some money to perfect the title from contested to consented, but to displace en masse on an ethnic basis, is ethnic cleansing.
Mass forced removal is always a catastrophe. The basis of title to the land is contested. But, the buildings are owned. They were paid for (to Palestinian workers largely). To simply take the buildings would then be a theft.
The Jewish people are a people, not a religion only.
Download it before it gets removed and twitter it. http://www.newsweek.com/id/206021
Judaism is a religion. Most Jews have no genetic link to the Hebrews and are merely converts to the religion. Israeli scholar Shlomo Zand has debunked the myth of teh Jewish people.
"Mass forced removal is always a catastrophe." Yes, which is then name teh Palestinians gave to the mass removal of 1948. The difference being that there is a basis in international law for the dismantling of the settlements. Even Israeli governments of the past have accepted this.
Excellently put Craig. The problem with the Isreli settlers is that they make no distinction between private property and Israeli territory. Indeed, the Israeli government has exploited the settler movement as a means of expanding it's borders.
There is no dispute about staus. For the 100th time, the only party that maintains any dispute is Israel. No other government shares this belief, not even Israel's Supreme Court. Israel has deliberatley exploited the settler movement to expand it's borders and grab more land. it has been a cynical popliy fo stalling and delaying to change the facts on the ground. Israel knew those settlements were illegal at the time they were being built, and now they are arguing that the period of time that has elapsed has legitimized these settlements. That is rubbish of course. A thief cannot claim ownership based on a statute fo limitations. If the settlers insist it is their home as a mater fo private property, then they cannot claim it is part of Israel. In any case, those homes were built where Arab homes stood, so there is compensation owed to the original land owners. Teh original lawn owners have been refugees for throughout that time, and their staus is more legitimate than land thieves. Enthic cleasing is the illegal and foreceful removal of one ethnicity by another under threat of violence. The dismantlinig of the settlements has a basis in interntaional law, and thus does not constitute ethnic cleansing.
Theodor Meron was the authority on matters of international law. Not only did the ICJ agree with his conclusions, but so did Israel's Supreme Court. Are they also a joke Thom? The wall is not an anti-terrorism fence, but a wall that is larger than the Berlin Wall and has been used to steal more land, cutting in as far as 8 km into Palestinian land. The ICJ never disputed that a wall could be built, so long as it respected internationally recognized borders. Jordan was never an occupier. It never maintained check points, bulldozed houses and stole land.
The difference is that Jewish homes in West Bank colonies are built on land confiscated, often without even a fig-leaf of legality, from Palestinians who were living there. When you take from another at gunpoint and they don't want to give it to you, it's called stealing.
Only if you both take him at his word and believe that he has the power to bind future Palestinian governments to it. As we have seen when Hamas took over Gaza, they do not consider themselves bound by their predecessor's commitments. That is one reason why Israel cannot accept an armed Palestinian state, because the word of the Palestinian government cannot be counted on to last longer than a single election (if that long). Right now, the Palestinians position is "we want the power to kill you, Jews. But we agree not to use it, until the next government comes in".