Joseph Dana has an interesting take on the report in Haaretz that Netanyahu has described Barack Obama's top advisers, Jews Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod, as self-hating Jews:
There is a feeling among certain intellectuals and statesman in Israel that left leaning American Jews do not have the right to be critical of the policies of the State of Israel. In recent conversations with some prominent academics, I have heard how the New York Review of Books is one of the worst arenas in which these ‘Jews’ discuss the politics of “our state”. In these circles of ardent Zionists, left wing Jews are often considered ‘political enemies’. The fact that the State of Israel acts in the name of the ‘Jewish people’ has no bearing on their right to talk freely about Israeli politics.
The recent passing of the renowned Israeli author and journalist Amos Elon is an interesting case. Elon was a respected critic in Israel until he decided to sell his house in Jerusalem and move to Tuscany about ten years ago. The news of his death took a relatively long time to show up in the Israeli media which surprised me as he was the leading Haaretz correspondent for nearly forty years. In my opinion, his life and work were swept to the side because of his decision to leave Israel. I suppose his decision to join the Diaspora made the date of his death much earlier than it was in Israel.
I am not talking about emigrants from Israel, of which there are a huge number every year and very little coverage in the media. Rather, I am talking about Zionist insecurity that manifests in the form of assaults on anyone who is critical of Israel regardless of religion. Zionism has never understood itself as a strong movement or project. Out of weakness come irrational attacks on anyone and anything. Bibi’s comments are not reflective of his own insanity rather the weight of our collective insecurity. Zionism has a significant fear of abandonment complex that only grows with time.
I'm sure they don't hate themselves but I do believe that asking Jews not to build in the land of Israel is not correct.
actually they are not asking this at all, but rather that the israeli government does not expropriate palestinian land for jews to build US subsidized housing on
Nanuk, Destroying Jewish homes is wrong in my opinion. The towns are established fact. In that disputed area the Arabs build all the time. I think it should be equal for Jewish to be allowed to build
Eitan, It would be OK for Jews to build in the occupied territory as long as they pay for the land and as long as there is no problem with Palestinians being allowed to build wherever they want from the northern border of Israel to the southern border. You say that destroying Jewish homes is wrong but do you feel the same way about Israel destroying Palestinian homes? Since Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza they have destroyed well over 11,000 Palestinian homes, many because they were built without a permit that is virtually impossible for Palestinians to obtain, others because Israel just wanted to take over the land. Lets have equal access to the land and to the water resouces throughout the entire state of Israel and the occupied (not disputed) territories. That would only be fair and just.
Jan, I think the term disputed is better than occupied. The Arabs should also pay for land. But to whom? Why should a Jew pay an arab for disputed land? Or vice versa? I don't think homes should be destroyed for anyone really. I think if there is a suicide terrorist his home should be destroyed as deterrent however. Sometimes I think we should knock down arab homes but that's when I see Jewish homes get knocked down and I'm angry I want reciprocity.
"Destroying Jewish homes is wrong in my opinion. The towns are established fact." Yes, this is known as changing the facts on the ground, which is a game that Israel has been playing for decades. while Israel stonewalls and stalls during negotiations, it builds settlements and then later argues that the settlements exist and cannot be moved. Unfortunately, the settlements are still illegal, though Israel continue to use sophistry to argue that laws are no longer relevant. If someone steals your home, it's still theft 1 or 10 years after the fact/ "I think the term disputed is better than occupied." Of course you would, but that would be a lie. Th term "disputed" is a recent concoction to try and muddy the waters. If they were disputed, then the UN would be there to arbitrate the disputes or at the very least, be patrolled by Palestinian forces as well as Israeli forces. Arabs did own the land before it was stolen, so why shod they have to buy it again? When Israel as founded, Jews only owned 7% of the land and Arabs 50%. "I think if there is a suicide terrorist his home should be destroyed as deterrent however." Which means that all Israel have to do is come up with an accusation that the owner is a terrorist and that would let them demolish it.
Good points, Phil. The most obvious example of this insecurity is the strange obsession that people acknowledge Israel's "right to exist." If anyone questioned the USA's "right to exist," I would laugh at them. My country isn't going anywhere, doesn't require "rights" from anyone, and anyone with a problem can take it up with our armed forces.
David, I agree that as Jews, we shouldn't insist from our enemies recognition. By the same token we aren't obligated to grant it either. I think however the situation in the US is different because the US has never had it's national character in as much danger of destruction as our Jewish homeland.
Shingo, "If someone steals your home, it's still theft 1 or 10 years after the fact" I agree time is irrelevant so let's go back 2,500 years when Jews owned %100 of the land.
"I agree time is irrelevant so let's go back 2,500 years when Jews owned %100 of the land." Let's not, because you know that there are is no such thing as a title deed from God or one that goes back 2,500 years. It is widely accepted in academic circles that very few Jews today have any genetic link to the land anyway, so don;t wast our time with your deranged beliefs about being chosen by God.
"I agree that as Jews, we shouldn't insist from our enemies recognition. By the same token we aren't obligated to grant it either." Then perhaps you should tell the Israeli government that it has no right to demand recognition from those it refuses to recognize.
Shingo, I'm fine with that.
"……asking Jews not to build in the land of Israel is not correct." But just what is the land of Israel? Is it the U.N. partition? Does it include land conquered in '48? in '67? Does it include the Golan Heights? The Shebaa Farms? Is it all the land from the river to the sea? Does nothing belong to the Palestinians? Wouldn't it be nice if it included all of Southern Lebanon, up to the Litani River? Can you see why we're confused?
AnaSanchez, I guess I should clarify. I mean anywhere, like Paris France, Saudi Arabia, Ramallah etc Jews have the right to live. I don't think we should be barred just because we are Jews. Concerning the Land of Israel we have a really strong spiritual attachment to this area and different people delineate it differently but the idea is that especially here, in land we really hold dear, the case is even stronger than, Paris, Medina, Rabat, etc.
Jews do have the tight to live anywhere, so long as they don't live on land that does not belong to them. If a car thief gives me a car, it doesn't make it mine. Jews, Christians and Muslims all have a strong spiritual attachment to the area, so why should Jews be given special privileges? Civilized societies recognize property rights, but Israel stole land and claimed it as it's own. No country on the world recognizes Israel's right to the occupied territories. Israel has to return it.
Shingo, The land belongs to Jews.
"The land belongs to Jews." Wrong again. Land belongs to those who hold the legal title deeds. The land inside the 1967 borders belong to Israel. The West Bank and the houses that belonged to the Arab that were ethnically cleansed in 1948, belongs to Palestinians.
Shingo, Jews own the legal title deeds. Jews also own legal title deeds in all the Arab countries where far more Jews were cleansed than arabs ever left the land of Israel.
Which "Academic circles" would this be? The Madrases that teach the Koran and nothing else? Over here in the reality based community we actually check the evidence before we "accept" something. In this case, the evidence is that the Jews have a genetic link that goes back to the land of Israel over 2000 years ago. Suck it bitch.
Eitan, When Jews build houses in Paris, France, the land that that house is built on does not automatically become a part of Israel, just because a Jew lives on it. However, the settlements that are built on Palestinian land are built there for the purpose of incorporating that land into the state of Israel at a later time. I'm sure you see the difference. I know a lot of people are spiritually connected to the Holy Land, but just because one has a spiritual connection to a place does not mean that one has the right to evict the people living there and take away their land. Palestinians love the land just as much as Jews do and their connection to it is much more current. They are the descendants of the ancient Hebrews, people who stayed on their farms and villages after the fall of the Second Temple, who mixed with later arrivals and changed religions. Why should they have to be expelled from this land just to make way for new immigrants from Russia, Europe and the United States? No matter how you look at it, it's just not fair.
The Arabs didn't hold legal title deeds to most of it. Some was rented from the Ottoman Empire before the Brits took over, others were squatted upon. The amount of land actually owned and deeded was pretty small.
Wrong as usual Thom. The Arabs owned 50% of the land and the Jews 7%, which I agree is pretty small. The Jews tried to bu it from the Arabs, but the Arabs wouldn't sell to they stole it. For 50 years before Israel's s creation, Zionistswere already plotting on how to steal the land. "Palestine proper has already its inhabitants. The pashalik of Jerusalem is already twice as thickly populated as the United States, having fifty-two souls to the square mile, and not 25% of them Jews ….. [We] must be prepared either to drive out by the sword the [Arab] tribes in possession as our forefathers did or to grapple with the problem of a large alien population, mostly Mohammedan and accustomed for centuries to despise us." (Righteous Victims, p. 140 & Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 7-10) Soon after the first Zionist Congress in Basel (Switzerland) in 1897, a Zionist delegation was sent to Palestine for a fact finding mission, and to explore the viability of settling Palestine with persecuted European Jews. The delegation replied back from Palestine with a cable that stated: "The bride is beautiful, but she is married to another man." (Iron Wall, p. 3) The forcible divorce of Palestine from its indigenous people was eloquently articulated by Ze'ev Jabotinsky, the founder of the Israeli political Right, in 1926 who explained that: " … the tragedy lies in the fact the there is a collision here between two truths …. but our justice is greater. The Arab is culturally backward, but his instinctive patriotism is just as pure and noble as our own; it cannot be bought, it can only be curbed … force majeure." (Righteous Victims, p. 108) Israel Zangwill, who had visited Palestine in 1897 and came face-to-face with the demographic reality. He stated in 1905 in a speech to a Zionist group in Manchester that: "Palestine proper has already its inhabitants. The pashalik of Jerusalem is already twice as thickly populated as the United States, having fifty-two souls to the square mile, and not 25% of them Jews ….. [We] must be prepared either to drive out by the sword the [Arab] tribes in possession as our forefathers did or to grapple with the problem of a large alien population, mostly Mohammedan and accustomed for centuries to despise us." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 7- 10, and Righteous Victims, p. 140)
Shingo, I like that statement, the bride is beautiful! Amazing really great! The Jewish people have been returned to our bride. Well that is just wonderful!
Look at a map of ancient Israel and Judea. They didn't include all the land Israel occupies today (namely Gaza and Ashkelon). And of course some of Jordan, Syria and Lebanon were in the old kingdoms. This is why basing Israel off Biblical legitimacy is a recipe for endless war.
Delusional racist, thief, and killer. How many Palestinians have you killed, Eitan?
I gotta say, there's something ignorant about espousing a desire for house demolitions when that is consistent Israeli policy. The Gaza settlements and their constant defense were a drain on the IDF, that's why they were evacuated. Don't worry though, even if Israeli Jews can't live in Gaza, Israel still drills for natural gas there.
The 1947 UN partition plan for Palestine specifies which areas belong to Israel and which to the Palestinians. Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory are an illegal occupation. Those areas are not accurately described as "disputed" because there is no dispute among honest people about them. They are not part of Israel, period. If someone comes in and occupies a room of your house and refuses to leave, it would be unreasonable for them to insist that they are not "occupying" or "squatting" in your home, but instead the room is "disputed", as if there was actually room for disagreement over whose house it was.
No, they didn't. Go look at a map of Palestine in the time of the histories in the Tanakh (translation for Christians: the Old Testament). It wasn't all one country populated by one group. Even the stories in the Tanakh, without a map, should make that perfectly obvious. Don't you even read your own holy books?
Craig, UN partition plan was rejected by Arabs. The land is Jewish and therefore not occupied
Eitan, Jews own the legal title deeds within Israel. Title deeds outside of Israel are illegal because the land is occupied and building on occupied territory violates the 4th Geneva Convention. Most Jews who left Arab lands were not cleansed but left of their own accord, and sold their property.
Shingo, As I mentioned before I will try to limit my interaction on this point because we do have dissenting opinions that won't be bridged on this forum. I will repeat however it is my contention that the land is not occupied and also not in violation of the 4th Geneva convention. I will also re-iterate that the Jews that left Arab lands were cleansed of their land and did not receive due compensation for their properties.
Excellent point AnaSanchez, So even if you argue that the land belonged to the Israelites there 2, 500 years ago and that their progeny should be the the heirs to the land, then the Palestinians are the rightful owners. Unless of course, Eitan and his ilk believe that God gave them the land and their forfeited their rights when they converted to Islam.
Shingo, Are you implying that Palestinians are descendants of ancient Hebrews? If so I'm not going to argue either way because I honestly don't know but I would like to hear you flesh our your thoughts in that regard.
"I like that statement, the bride is beautiful! Amazing really great! The Jewish people have been returned to our bride. " Yes, "bride is beautiful, but she is married to another man." In the civilized world Eitan , taking someone else's bride against her will is rape, which pretty much sums up the foundations of Israel's existence. Excellent observation Eitan.
Eitan, read an article in Haaretz by Ofri Llani, "Shattering a 'National Mythology.'" Sorry but I don't know how to add links. Just to quote a couple of sentences, "Ytzak Ben-Zvi, the second president of Israel, wrote in 1929: 'The vast majority of the peasant farmers do not have their origin in the Arab conquerors but rather, before then, in the Jewish farmers who were numerous and a majority in the building of the land.'" The bottom line is that the Romans could not expel the Jews….there were no trains or buses of course. So most people just stayed, later became Christian and then Muslim.
It not a new theory by any means. A best selling book in Israel, When and How Was the Jewish People Invented?, a book by Tel Aviv University scholar Shlomo Zand, supports this argument. http://www.alternet.org/story/122810/ "Zand's central argument is that the Romans didn't expel whole nations from their territories. Zand estimates that perhaps 10,000 ancient Judeans were vanquished during the Roman wars, and the remaining inhabitants of ancient Judea remained, converting to Islam and assimilating with their conquerors when Arabs subjugated the area. They became the progenitors of today's Palestinian Arabs, many of whom now live as refugees who were exiled from their homeland during the 20th century."
Maybe Eitan is interested in polygamy? (One state solution)
Jews? what about the Turkik Khazar empire that converted wholesale to Judaism around 900 CE. and then were displaced by the Mongol hoards into southern Russia and Eastern Europe, to become the Ashkenazik Jews who now claim eretz Israel to be their own.
RE: "…let's go back 2,500 years when Jews owned %100 of 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
The UN Partition Plan was rejected by Israel. The Plan gave every Palestinian who lived in the planned Jewish state full citizenship rights, which include the right to remain in or return to one's home. Israel violated that right and it violated that right well before May 1948. Israel also violated the plan by attacking and annexing areas that were set aside as part of the planned Arab state. Read the plan, you'll see that Israel violated it. Why do you consider the land Jewish? Because Hebrews lived there in ancient times? But others lived there before them, so why don't those previous people have the right to the land. If its just descendants of the Hebrews that can hold the land, then by all rights the Palestinian people are more closely related by DNA to the ancient Hebrews than most present day Jews are. According to the Bible, God didn't give the land to the Jews, he gave it to Abraham and his descendants. So either way, the idea that the land belongs to the Jews regardless of who has lived there all this time has no basis in reality. May I ask, do you likewise think that Jews should be prohibited from owning land elsewhere, since you believe that Jews have a special right to that particular land? Or are Jews extra privileged in your mind.? Do Jews have a right to Eretz Israel simply because of their religious background regardless of where they live and also a right to land anywhere else they choose to be?
RE: "Are you implying that Palestinians are descendants of ancient Hebrews?" SEE: "Ancient Israeli Myths Deter Peace", By Robert Parry, 07/09/09 (EXCERPT) …Asked if he was saying that the true descendants of the inhabitants of the Kingdom of Judah are the Palestinians, Sand responded: "No population remains pure over a period of thousands of years. But the chances that the Palestinians are descendants of the ancient Judaic people are much greater than the chances that you or I are its descendents. “The first Zionists, up until the Arab Revolt [1936-1939], knew that there had been no exiling, and that the Palestinians were descended from the inhabitants of the land. They knew that farmers don't leave until they are expelled." ENTIRE ARTICLE – http://www.consortiumnews.com/2009/070809.html
SEE: "Ancient Israeli Myths Deter Peace", By Robert Parry, 07/09/09 ENTIRE ARTICLE – http://www.consortiumnews.com/2009/070809.html
Here's the link to Ilani's article : http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/966952.html
RE: "Jews that left Arab lands" This was often caused by Israel's actions such as the 1956 invasion of the Sinai and the 'Lavon Affair' (to name just two). SINAI 1956 – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavon_Affair LAVON AFFAIR – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavon_Affair
I like it when Zionists claim the Arab invasion made al-Nakba necessary, but Arabs are ethnic cleansing monsters for reacting to the Suez war the same way.
eitan, your logic is full of holes. how does the land become jewish just because the Arabs rejected the partition? what makes the partition binding? the jews were given over 50% of the land when they were a minority of the population and owned something like 7-9% of the property. the UN and the imperial powers didn't have the right to slice up the ME and the Occupation is not 'disputed'. no one should judge this conflict by Israel's laws. they are not even laws, they are simply 'state policy' its as if the US government were to colonize Iraq and then point to some random Supreme court ruling your own laws do not apply when you're dealing with another people in a situation like this the occupation is illegal – and everything it comes w/ palestinians are continually being kicked off their land and their homes demolished but if a jew loses his illegal home and is forced to go live in his country inside the green line that's 'wrong'? jews need to see themselves as human beings first and need to see arabs that way too, this is just pure religious craziness and racism
no eitan, reasonable people do not allow Jews to go back 2500 years. reasonable people think that the timespan of this conflict – ESPECIALLY with the progressive reforms in international law and such taking place therein – is enough of a threshold it's only you and other Zionists that want to slippery slope reasonable arguments so that you can exploit Jewish suffering that happened 3000 years ago what a load of bullshit. Jews trying to exploit that 3000 years line, are just like that Dentist from Seinfeld who converted to Judaism and immediately began talking about how he's suffered so much for 3000 years you're just greedy and want to steal everything the palestinians have left you want to erase them from that land and say it's all Jewish scumbag thief
no one in the world has to recognize Israel as a Jewish State, and Palestinians' right of return supercedes Israel's Jewishness you kicked them out, destroyed and erased over 500 of their villages, and now you want recognition? there couldnt be a 'jewish state' without the displacement and dispossession of the native population thats why they do not recognize israel. it has nothing to do with Jewishness – no one cares. it has to do with your group who took this other group's land and property during the war and didnt give it back and here you are trying to make both sides seem equal, like the palestinians have done the same to you. you are only able to get away with this criminality because youre more powerful than the palestinians w/ the support of an even bigger criminal state (the US) it has nothing to do with this academic on-going discussion israel has always been an artificial state. no right to exist
spiritual attachment does not matter. and you are not being kicked out because you are specficially jews but because you stole the land stop exploiting your identity – no one cares. this is not about jewishness this is about conquest and colonization. people do not like that.
so what happens to the palestinians
Eitan is self-delusional and steeped in ideology. He sees himself first as a Jew. And he thinks his Jewishness gives him the right to steal from non-Jews and essentially do whatever to them
Under the Balfour Declaration a home for the Jewish people could not be made at the expense of the natives living there. The UN partition plan drew the boundary line for the Jewish homeland. It awarded the Jews a disproportionate chunk of the land, based on respective population; despite this, the self-declared new state of Israel commenced taking more land in 1947 and has done so ever since while simultaneously the natives and surrounding Arab countries rejected the UN partition plan even as Israel paid lip-service to the partition plan, which, along with the Balfour letter, gave international "book ends" legitimacy, such as it was, to the new state, as a "nation amongst nations." The gift by the world's then existing state powers at the UN assembly, through its vote count was not unconditional. The involved Jews have violated those conditions since 1947. The fact that the natives and surrounding Arab states rejected the partition does not give license to the Jews to extend themselves beyond the partition boundaries nor to violate the seminal Balfour letter's demand the natives in the Jewish homeland be treated as described therein, any more than the Arabs had license to ignore what the UN partition plan decided. To argue otherwise is simply to ignore the highest applicable law determining respective rights: the prevailing vote at the UN. Under that law Israel has a right to exist in the 1947 petition boundary; and also under international the additional land Israel now controls and continues to root its citizens in is illegally occupied land. There is no dispute. "Facts on the ground" allowing otherwise should be removed and if they are not removed, just as Israel ignores the founding conditions of its legitimacy, the Arabs can ignore Israel's claim of a right to exist. Neither side should be allowed by the world to have its cake and eat it too. Otherwise the rule of law is merely what Goering said it was during his trial: Might makes Right. And we all know that ain't progress.
You, Eitan, are referring to the land Joshua stole from the natives according to your holy book? I believe there was a WW2 that was fought, and in its wake, subsequent international crimes established (ex post facto), e.g., the Nuremberg Trials and the crimes the defendants were tried and hung for committing, no?
Eitan, that's all you're left with as a response? Pathetic. Quit wasting our time. God told me the world belongs to me. Or, as the Hitler Youth sang in Cabaret, tomorrow belongs to me.
The problem with not building isn't about the Land of Israel, its about building where there is imperfect legal title to build. Title rights are constructed by a "reasonable man" test of consent. No state or halachic decree is sufficient to realize that.
The status of the land title is contested. That is an accurate descrption. Its not accurately confidently individual or institutional Jewish land, nor accurately confidently individual or institutional Palestinians' land. But, in fact contested. In recent life, it is more likely that individual parcels are validly Palestinian titled, ESPECIALLY in locales where there were prior Palestinian villages (not abandoned ones). For Israel to be in conformity with Torah, the rule of law has to apply there. The deniable sequence of temporary military rationalization morphing to civilian settlement then transfer to civilian title, without equal due process for Palestinian claims, amounts to a theft. It must be assessed case by case. The generalization that "all the land is Palestinian" is equally unfounded. But the rationalization for expropriation is a false one.
Thats a statement that can only be tested case by case. It certainly is NOT true on the basis of Torah. Torah actually describes that one should not steal, nor covet thy neighbor's possession. Its zennish. How can one acquire something legally that one does not desire?
Shingo, Finally, you get my point. It supports Palestinians' case to rely on the rule of law, but just not in all cases.
For Israel the issue is "Now that you've got what you want, and still you want more". (Thank you Bob Marley)
Wrong again Shingo. Quoting from Palaprop sites doesn't make it true. 50% Arab land ownership? The Palaprop just keeps on flowing. According to the British 1946 survey and quoted by PLO-affiliated Institute for Palestine Studies, the Arabs owned 28.6 % of the land which included included Bedouin grazing land (8.4 percent) and waste land (13.4 percent), neither of which was legally ownable according to the prevailing Turkish and British land laws. Leaving the Arabs 6.8% as compared to 7 or 8% for the Jews. Most of the land was State land controlled by the British. http://blackandtaneyes.blogspot.com/2006/03/repor...
How many Americans have you killed, or caused to die?
Strahl is a jealous WASP who is killing himself over the fact that he was passed over. Poor impotent Strahl.
For example the highest rule of law legitimatizing the State of Israel confined to the 1947 Partition borders and with Palestinian rights as guaranteed by the Balfour Declaration? Wouldn't that be the macro for consistent micro judgments of title and ownership of any parcel of land?
Isn't all this talk going back 2500 years a bit silly? Some one, two or three million years ago we humans came strolling out of Africa. And at different times different waves of humans calling themselves different names settled here and there, moved and re-settled, and on and on. But absolutely nothing gives one of those waves any more or less right to point to a piece of land and say in any ultimate *moral* sense "that's mine." They are no greater nor lesser than any other member of the larger group called "humankind." Dispensing with the moral then by almost every measure always the most conclusive pragmatic answer to the question of who "owns" land has been … active, present habitation. And by that measure the jews having been significantly absent for 2,500 years hardly helps their argument. To me at least the sole but determinative answer is that right or wrong the world in essence agreed to the establishment of Israel in '47-48 and we simply can't go back through history ripping up the fundamental architecture of that world with all the horrors that means due to some quest for some "moral" answer that doesn't even exist. *None* of us would likely be allowed to be sitting where we are today if that were attempted. As much if not more than every other state today then according to the pragmatic standards the world has recognized Israel has a right to exist within its original borders. And thus the sole legitimate challenge to its right to exist can only come from Israel itself by denying that right to others. Just as everyone would agree that after World War II and due to Germany's actions the Allies and the world would have had the right to tear Germany apart and scatter its parts to the winds and its neighbors, it is Israel alone that is now jeopardizing its fundamental status. Without it occupying the lands it took in 1967 no one of any significance whatsoever now—not even the Arab League as shown by Abdullah's offer—would gainsay that sovereign status. And thus, in terms of the only really significant challenges to its fundamental right to exist, it is Israel and Israel alone that is calling into question its continued legitimacy.
"Jews have a genetic link that goes back to the land of Israel over 2000 years ago" And so do the Palestinians :-)
The only party in teh world that believes the land is contested is Israel. It's a false and sleazy description used by a thief. It's not a case by case issue at all. The land it occupied and ALL settlements are illegal. End of story.
Eitan, There are two meanings of "occupied". One is that Israel is an interloper, an outside oppressor. The second is that Israel is a temporary caretaker, obligated by international law to maintain services, maintain law, until a transition to a consented sovereign power is completed. The second meaning of "occupation" IS accurate. Israel does NOT hold an internationally ratified charter to the West Bank. (Judea and Samaria are ancient terms for the land, not modern.) It does to the pre-1949 armistice lines.
It is pointless that you simply repeat that you contend that the land is not occupied or deny that it is in violation of the 4th Geneva convention. The UN says it it. Teh Word Court says so and so does your own Supreme Court. Simple jumping up and down insisting that you don't agree is irrelevant. You can also re-iterate that the Jews that left Arab lands were cleansed of their land, but you have yet to provie any evidence of proof to back up your statement. You are simply spouting propghanda.
"It supports Palestinians' case to rely on the rule of law, but just not in all cases. " Tule of law eitehr always applies or never. You don't get to pick and choose.
Title even in much of Israel is still contested, as the original ownership and means of transfer of ownership are contested by a "reasonable man" test. I asked my wife if she knew how title was established in Europe after WW2, in which title to land (not just referring to Jews) was unclear and the chains of record of ownership had been disrupted. She didn't know. I would be curious as to the legal precedents, and how title that had been unknown and/or contested shifted to a status of consented.
Is the number 50% Arab ownership from an actual source that can be researched and/or verified? Or did you just pull it from thin air?
I'm glad that you acknowledge that a large minority of the land was not held in Arab hands, that a large portion of the land was actually not privately titled and likely vacant.
Israel, a paternalistic caretaker? [rubs eyes] Is that for real? I suppose the settlements were there for Palestinian benefit too? The reason why Palestinians can't declare their own state is because it's partly occupied by Israel
Does Israel have a right to exist as a Jewish state? Do they have a right to define themselves and if so, then didn't Germany? Could the world decide that the Kurds have a right to their own state and then carve pieces out of Turkey, Iran & Iraq? This is what the UN agreed to have as Israel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Parti... Israel went on to put *facts on the ground* the world did not agree to those. "Just as everyone would agree that after World War II and due to Germany's actions the Allies and the world would have had the right to tear Germany apart and scatter its parts to the winds and its neighbors" – I don't agree. This was the actions of a vengeful victors. There was no justice involved. It can be argued, as Buchanan, does that the British hold as much responsibility if not more for WWII as Germany. Because the Nazis are continuously drawn into the discussion about I/P, we really should have a clear view of what actually happened.
Of course the status of the land is contested. You generalize, rather than address specific land claims case by case. It reduces the validity of your assertions. In a high percentage of cases, your conclusion is likely to be affirmed. But, that is a DIFFERENT beast than to judge prejudicially.
That is the only legally useful of the meaning "occupier".
It applies to cases, NOT to generalizations. The rule of generalization is fascism, law by decree. It is what is abhorent about Israeli law (when that is how it is applied). It is abhorent about Palestinian law (when that is how it is applied). And, it is abhorent in the mouths of dissenters (when that is how it applies).
Rubbish. No one but Israel refers to the land contested. It resides outside the 1967 borders which represents the only legitimate designation for the stet of Israel. Not even the US, Israel's closest ally, refers to the ocucpied territories as contested. None of the UN resolutions refers to the territories as contested. The term "contested" is used by Israeli propghandists to put a shine to their illegal occupation. There is nothing to be judged. It is about law and law does not apply selectively to a percentage of cases, it applies to all.
"Thats a statement that can only be tested case by case. " It has already been tested by the Wordl Court and by Israel's Supreme Court, who both agree with Teodore Meron's jufgment that the settlemetns violate the 4th Geneva Convention.
"It applies to cases, NOT to generalizations." Wrong. The Israeli Supreme Court and the World Court both concluded that the territories are occpued and that the settlements are illegal. Law applies in all cases, not just some cases. If you don''t like the rule of law, tough luck. Israel is either a land of laws or it is not. And the law we are talking about is not Israeli or Palestinian, but international law.
"Ashrawi routinely propagates the common but false claim that land not owned by Jews in Palestine in 1948 belonged to Palestinian Arabs. In fact, historically, under Ottoman and British rule, most of the land was government owned. According to statistics from the Survey of Palestine, which was published in 1946 by British Mandate authorities, and later republished by the PLO-affiliated Institute for Palestine Studies, Jews owned 8.6 percent of the land and Arabs owned 28.6 percent. But the Arab total included Bedouin grazing land (8.4 percent) and waste land (13.4 percent), neither of which was legally ownable according to the prevailing Turkish and British land laws. Not counting Bedouin grazing land and waste land, Arab owned land totaled only 6.8 percent. But, even if one counts land in these categories as Arab owned, the majority of land in Palestine in 1948 was state land, which did not belong to Palestinian private owners. Because there was never a sovereign Palestinian Arab state, this state land cannot be said to have ever have been “Palestinian owned.”" What is the source for this?
Your side started the BLOODBATH with their PREPLANNED ethnic cleansing before Arabs fired a shot. The TRUTH is out there!!Stop with your crap. You have no arguments, you are an illegal, foreign entity put there by the West to control the ME. F — off now.
Does it really matter what percentage of the land Palestinians owned while occupied by the Brits or Turks? Palestinian serfs or squatters are still more legitimate than foreigners who happen to be Jewish.
"No one but Israel refers to the land contested. " That's just an assertion. The only UN resolution that is international law as in passing the security council as well as the general assembly is resolution 242. And, that doesn't refer to title questions, but only to sovereignty questions and NOT clearly. There are six valid status' of land in the West Bank. 1. Titled to individual Palestinians (and entities) 2. Relatively titled to indivdual Palestinians on the relative basis of residence, not paper 3. Titled to individual Jews (and entities) 4. Titled to state land (Turkey -> British occupied- > Jordanian occupied -> Israeli occupied) 5. Untitled – Common land It takes assessment on a case by case basis to determine the degree and nature of title of each parcel, and remedies to perfect title. A blanket statement, is by definition an innaccurate one.
Citation?
Occupied as to sovereignty, obliged to maintain services, law and order, policing, and to retain the status of title as resembling the status prior to the occupation. The deliberation as to individual parcels can only lawfully be determined on a case by case basis. There is no International law to determine specific title rights.
Well Laurie you might think that the Allies would have had no right to tear Germany apart after WWII but—just my opinion—I don't think the world would have objected too much. Especially after Germany had just escaped that very same fate already after WWI at Versailles where the major actors had already howled for something just like that and where it was probably solely due to the involvement of Wilson that same didn't happen. Seems to me the reason it didn't happen after WWII either was two-fold: Firstly the already emerging dynamics of the Cold War competition with the Soviet Union, and, secondly, the sense that the economics of the Versailles accords had contributed to the rise of Hitler. But I don't think that any major actor at all would have felt that Germany had a continued *right* to exist at all after its aggressions. Parenthetically I also think you get Buchanan's book wrong. I don't think he'd say that the British hold "as much responsibility" for WWII as Germany "if not more." To do so he'd have to say at the very least that Hitler's agression against Poland was justified and I don't think he does. He just says that it was *dumb* of Britain to start the war *over* same. Different from the moral responsibility you hint at.
Israelis? Racists, thieves, and killers. Bomb the settlements!
No it's not an assertion, because you will not find any statement by a non Israeli that refers to the occupied trritories as "contested". You are right, 242 does not refer to title questions, however, Israeli settlers and Israel link title to sovereignty and teritorial claims, thus it applies to all settlements. Therefore, there is no case by case basis to be had. The land, whether Jewish owned or Palestinian owned, resides inside Palestinian territory. The Palestinians have said they woudl allow the settlements to remain under Palestinian rule, but the settlers and Israel are rejecting that offer. There is no ambiguity about it.
"Considering this history, the Court stressed that the Hague Regulations of 1907 are part of customary law and are thus applicable in the Occupied Territories. The Fourth Geneva Convention, as well, is applicable because there existed an armed conflict between two high contracting parties — Israel and Jordan — to the Convention when Israel occupied the West Bank." "The existence of a 'Palestinian people' is no longer in issue," the Court observed, and Israel is legally obligated to respect the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. Therefore, the Court concluded, "the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law." The settlements and the wall being built to protect them constitute a "de facto annexation" which "severely impedes the exercise by the Palestinian people of its right to self-determination." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-occupied_ter... "In 2004, the International Court of Justice issued an advisory opinion stating that the barrier violates international law.[4] In a related case the Israeli Supreme Court, sitting as the High Court of Justice, stated that Israel has been holding the areas of Judea and Samaria in belligerent occupation, since 1967. The court also held that the normative provisions of public international law regarding belligerent occupation are applicable. The Regulations Concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague of 1907 and the Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War 1949 were both cited.[5]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-occupied_ter...
"The deliberation as to individual parcels can only lawfully be determined on a case by case basis. " Wrong but in any case, the argument is not about title to the land, but about sovereignty. The title to land can be resolved while sovereignty is subject to International Law. Becasue the settlers refuse to accept Palestinian sovereignty or rule, then they will have to leave, as they become immigrants who refuse to abide by the law of the land. Simple as that.
"Poor impotent Strahl. " If Strahl is impotent, then what does that say abotu Israel, who relies on his tax dollars to remain viable?
Palestinians owned and operated over 93% of Palestine's lands as of 1945. In November 1947, the architect of the "transfer solution", Yosef Weitz, stated that the collective DISPOSSESSION of the Palestinian people was an inevitable outcome because of the high rate of land ownership among Palestinians. He stated: "[most of the land] not Jewish-owned or even in the category of the state domain whose ownership could be automatically assumed by a successor government. Thus, of 13,500,000 dunums (6,000,000 of which were desert and 7,500,000 dunums of cultivatable land) in the Jewish state according to the Partition plan, only 1,500,000 dunums were Jewish owned." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 182) Here is a map of Palestine before the Nakba, which shows that “as of 1947, Jews in Palestine owned UNDER 7% of the Palestine's lands, and after the 1948 war 80% of the Palestinian people were DISPOSSESSED of their homes, farms, and businesses. Scroll below for the source and tabular break down of land ownersh” http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Maps/Stor... Here is the same map in high res, replete with Moshe Dayan’s signature. http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Maps/Stor... So no, a large minority of the land was not vacant at all. According to Jewish scholars like Benny Morris and Tom Segev, The Jewish population in Palestine as of 1914 were under 8% of the total population, which was much smaller than the Palestinian Christian Arab population. Ardent Zionists, Israel Zangwill, who stated as early as 1905, that Palestine was twice as thickly populated as the United States. He stated: "Palestine proper has already its inhabitants. The pashalik of Jerusalem is already twice as thickly populated as the United States, having fifty-two souls to the square mile, and not 25% of them Jews ….. [We] must be prepared either to drive out by the sword the [Arab] tribes in possession as our forefathers did or to grapple with the problem of a large alien population, mostly Mohammedan and accustomed for centuries to despise us." (Righteous Victims, p. 140 & Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 7-10)
Wrong thedhimmi, As of 1947, Jews in Palestine owned UNDER 7% of the Palestine's lands, and after the 1948 war 80% of the Palestinian people were DISPOSSESSED of their homes, farms, and businesses. Go to the map to see a tabular break down of land ownership. http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Books/Sto... A Survey of Palestine, prepared by the British Mandate for UN prior to proposing the 1947 partition plan was prepared by the British Mandate for the United Nation Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) in 1946. Since many Zionist Myths about Palestine (most importantly Palestine was an empty country, and Jews made the desert bloom) are still prevalent lies in the West and Israel, we found that it is critical to share with the general public. We hope that our visitors, historians, students, and journalists find it useful. If you are serious about knowing the core issues of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, then this is a must read and have book. It concluded that Jews in Palestine owned UNDER 7% of the Palestine's lands, and after the 1948 war 80% of the Palestinian people were DISPOSSESSED of their homes, farms, and businesses. Scroll below for the source and tabular break down of land ownersh” http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Books/Sto...
Germany was torn apart after World War II. There was no "right" to do so; it was simply what the victors decided to do with their spoils.
(1) It's occupied. They are called the Occupied Territories. (2) Jews are not allowed to take land in occupied territory. So says the UN that sliced up Palestine in the first place. So says international law. (3) Palestinians own the majority of land in the OT. Christians, Muslims, and pre-1948 Jews. (4) What business is it of yours to seek reciprocity for anyone else's demise? Since when are you judge and jury?
Eitan, UN partition plan was rejected by Arabs. The land is Jewish and therefore not occupied Bullshit. If the plan was rejected, the land remains Arab.
Title rights are constructed by a "reasonable man" test of consent. No they're not. The NYT wrote an article about the Land Authority thingey in Israel having the clear deeds on file. Clear ownership of the land by Palestinians in a database, and the Israelis built settlements on top of these Palestinian lands anyway.
Jews have the ”Right to Exist.“ Israel does not. It earns its nationhood just like every other country on the planet.
I will repeat however it is my contention that the land is not occupied and also not in violation of the 4th Geneva convention. Tell that to the UN. UN Resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967 ”Calls for the withdrawal of Israel armed forces from Palestinian and other territories occupied in the 1967 war“ CONVENTION (IV) RELATIVE TO THE PROTECTION OF CIVILIAN PERSONS IN TIME OF WAR Signed at Geneva, 12 August 1949 The Israelis will not allow the right of return. That's a violation of the 4th Geneva Convention. Look it up. You're babbling nonsense.