Reports in the New York Times and Washington Post that the Obama administration is considering presenting its plan for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have created a lot of buzz and pushback from supporters of Israel.
However, the reports do not address the fundamental question: what would the plan mean for Palestinians and Israelis? In a sentence, it would mean the continuation of a pattern where the Palestinian leadership agrees to major concessions to secure an agreement with Israel, an agreement that would have little basis in international law
The basic outline being talked about is based on the so-called “Clinton Parameters” that were presented after the breakdown of the Camp David talks.
Here’s Marwan Bishara, Al Jazeera English’s senior political analyst, on what the “Clinton Parameters” mean:
After US president Bill Clinton failed in 2000 to get Ehud Barak, the Israeli premier and Yasser Arafat, the PLO chairman, to sign a comprehensive agreement at the Camp David summit, he made clear where he stood.
Sharing of Jerusalem; no right of return for the Palestinians; a return to the 1967 borders with mutual adjustments to allow Israel to annex big settlement blocks; and a demilitarised Palestinian state.
That's how Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former national security advisor, conveyed them to the Washington Post's David Ignatius before his meeting with Obama, along with other former national security advisors.
Bishara rightly points out that the terms presented above wouldn’t be “fair or just,” because they would relinquish the “right of return” for Palestinians displaced by the 1948 Nakba, a right “enshrined in international law and international humanitarian law, and isn't for Obama to deny, nor even for Mahmoud Abbas, the PLO chairman, to give away.”
And a demilitarized Palestinian state? With Israel keeping a presence “in fixed locations in the Jordan Valley under the authority of the International force for another 36 months” and having Israeli “early warning stations” inside the West Bank (as the “Clinton Parameters” state)? That doesn’t sound like an end to the occupation.
Also not considered is the fact that, as Dr. As’ad Ghanem, writing in Haaretz, says, the current Palestinian Authority, with Prime Minister Salam Fayyad at the helm, “is seen by the Palestinians as an American puppet. His government is not legitimate, even according to the Palestinian constitution.” A Palestinian government with no legitimacy agreeing to an American-imposed peace plan won’t do any good, especially with a Prime Minister who has been sharply criticized for apparently giving up the right of return to areas within Israel.
Helena Cobban, blogging at Just World News, has also criticized the potential Obama peace plan:
Clearly, it's time for something new. Like taking the whole issue back to the U.N. Security Council where it rightly belongs, and where it should and can be addressed on the clear basis of international law and international legitimacy. No more of this unworkably-complex business of redrawing loopy boundaries around illegal Israeli settlements and requiring millions of Palestinians to simply sign away their rights.
Insisting on the unlimited right of return of ambiguous descendants of residents of sovereign Israel, will prohibit any reconciliation.
It is only a vector to out and out war, that will result in far more suffering and far more removal of Palestinian residents, and permanently.
What do you propose instead?
Israel hasn’t cooperated for over 60 years. Elevate first the E. Jerusalem issue to the Security Council in order to stop the settlements. Israel will probably start another war over it. At that point, all of the issues should be elevated to the Security Council. The US veto will be withdrawn and the entire issue will be decided under international law.
It is sad to see Witty the humanist endorse war to prevent the application of international law. Says it all, I think.
“Endorse war”?
Very strange logic indeed.
You haven’t read me comment on the need to stop settlement construction, on the undeniable presence of Palestinians in the region, and the preference for their health as a better prospect for good neighbors?
Um yeah. Otherwise you would endorse the elevation of these issues to the Security Council so that world power could be harnessed to avoid any more war, death and misery. Instead, you state that there will be war, loss of life and even more expulsion if the right of return is not forfeited.
I expect that the Security Council would deal with the right of return based on a compensation formula based on current market values.
I wouldn’t think a humanist such as yourself have a problem with resolving these issues by resort to international law. Yet you do.
I favor the reconciliation of title claims by compensation.
That is not what is asserted is the right of return.
That would be up the Security Council and the compensation formula would be vastly different than the “title claims” type of scheme you are contemplating.
The world has now woken up to Israel’s unmitigated theft in these matters due to Israel’s obvious intransigence and perfidy that the Netanyahu government has fully exposed. The chances for justice for the Palestinians have increased.
Why should the Palestinians simply fork over 78% of the original Palestinian Mandate land? What was proposed by the UN Partition? Even that was highway robbery–I forget were the Zionists offered 58% or 53% of the original Mandate land? And how much did they own then–6% of the total land in question? And what again was the population division at that time? The UN created the problem; the UN should resolve it. It wouldn’t be the first time
blue-helmets came to the rescue.
Don’t you know Citizen, that the Palestinians have not given enough yet? That is always the statement – they will have to learn to sacrifice “more.” The Palestinians will have to learn to not be so greedy… These types of statements, and the language of “more sacrifice,” on the part of the Palestinians, should inform everyone about the illegitimacy of the “process.”
From memory Citizen the UN Partition Plan offered 55% to the zionists though their population was ~ 32% of the total, and their land ownership was ~8% on the even of statehood.
Far more sensible was the British Peel CommissionPlan c. 1937 which offered ~20% to the zionists with the area determined based on the concentrations of existing land ownership in the north west of Palestine, with a international neutral zone extending from Jerusalem to the sea.
I’m with you on the UN solving the problem, but how to counter the US veto? Maybe it’s time to reform the SC voting rules and eliminate the veto, or find some way of at least tempering it, perhaps by a UN GA referendum or an adjudication by the ICJ on the issue.
“… ambiguous descendants of residents of sovereign Israel …”
Let’s put aside the racist dismissal of Palestinian testimony in that word “ambiguous”. Many Palestinian descendants are children of residents of Palestine, not”sovereign Israel.” They are descendants of people forcibly expelled in the first round of 60 years of ethnic cleansing. International law affirms this.
It is astonishing that people can endorse a “right of return” for Jews who may (emphatic stress on “may”) have some link to Israel in ancestors dead 1,000 years — or more — yet deny a right of return to people or the children of people who were actually born there.
Yet, contemptible though I find this double-standard, I would never dream of challenging the claims of lineage of a Jew who feels deeply connected to Israel. Note that above I challenge the claim to a link to Israel the state, not the claim of being Jewish. By contrast, the opponents of a Palestinian right to return routinely begin by simply rejecting out of hand the ethnic and land claims of people who, in many cases, still hold the title to the land stolen from them.
An aside:
Whereas pro-Israel zealots in the US and abroad eagerly challenge the ancestral claims of Palestinians, even when we are talking about only two or three generations, they raise no question whatsoever regarding Jewish claims to Israel. There is absolutely never any discussion in any mainstream media outlet of what it means for a Jew to have a right of return to Israel. Why? Is every Jew on Earth supposed to be descended from Jews born sometime in the last 4,000 years in what is now the land west of the Jordan River? This is patently false. It isn’t even maintained by many Israeli Jews. Look at the campaign to find “lost Jews” in places like Peru. Moreover, to claim that every Jew is descended from a Jew born in biblical Israel is to deny that anyone outside of Israel has ever in the past 2,000 years converted to Judaism. Also patently false. This last point is at the heart of Shlomo Sand’s argument in his book, “The Invention of the Jewish People.”
“Insisting on the unlimited right of return of ambiguous [Jewish] descendants of residents of [ancient] sovereign Israel, will prohibit any reconciliation,” said Richard Witty.
“It is only a vector to out and out war, that will result in far more suffering and far more removal of Palestinian residents, and permanently.”
You sure qualify to be an Israeli Prime Minister, Witty. All you need now is an IDF and you are good to go. Far more suffering and far more removal of Palestinian residents, and permanently, sounds real ambitious. You will have to beat your own masters.
witty says:
It is only a vector to out and out war, that will result in far more suffering and far more removal of Palestinian residents, and permanently.
There you go again, threatening the Palestinians with permanent deportation from their ancestral lands if they refuse to accept what Israel is willing to accept. You implied as much as before. In spite of all of your past insinuations about being reasonable and seeking conciliation, this really makes you sound like a bully.
And for that, he will, of course, question your mental capacity. Because Witty is a bully.
[Also not considered is the fact that, as Dr. As’ad Ghanem, writing in Haaretz, says, the current Palestinian Authority, with Prime Minister Salam Fayyad at the helm, “is seen by the Palestinians as an American puppet. His government is not legitimate, even according to the Palestinian constitution.” A Palestinian government with no legitimacy agreeing to an American-imposed peace plan won’t do any good, ...]
Americans listen! the government or authority you are dealing with is being rejected by the people themselves…This is you best chance to get away from this mess…You’re interest will gain nothing from this peace settlement…this is more costly than having a a clear cut war! conserve your energies for much better and productive ideals…Not even angels are capable of untangling this ancient rooted mesh….You will just burn your hands! you’re like baked bread – fire above and fire below! If nobody recognizes the present Palestinian authority- much blessed Americans you are! run! You have nothing to be ashamed of…you’ve willing to help even costing your own blood, but nobody wants it anyway…
Richard – I am having difficulty understanding your obvious belief in a Jewish “right of return” to Israel when there is no evidence that the Jews were forcibly expelled after the destruction of the second Temple in 70 CE while there is overwhelming evidence that many of the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon and elsewhere were forcibly evicted both before and after the creation of the Israel even within the last twenty years.
Most of the evidence seems to suggest that the only Jews to leave Palestine after the Jewish revolt did so as merchants or economic migrants and that the explosion in the Jewish population after this event elsewhere in the Old World was the result of mass conversions in Central Asia, the Yemen and North Africa. So on the hierarchy of “rights of return”, you seem to believe that the descendants of people who departed their home country voluntarily a few millennia ago or are the descendents of people who never lived in the area now known as Palestine have a stronger “right of return” than people who were forcibly evicted within in living memory. So can you understand my belief that your comment is nothing more than the typical pile of crap that I have come to expect from you?
One person, One vote for everyone between the river and the sea.
That is a good start to the peace process.
A good proposal, in two distinct nations.
Do you think that Palestine will give settlers the right to vote in Palestinian elections, soon?
That depends on whether the settlers recognize the Palestinian government. Some settlers refuse to accept the authorit of Israel’s government.
We’re talking about some very etreme radicals Witty.
I agree. It is very difficult dealing with people that describe statutory laws as secondary to religious, and then editorally select and interpret their selections for their personal and collective opportunism.
What principles determine who is entitled to vote in current Palestinian elections? Should Israeli Palestinians get to vote in both Israeli and Palestinian elections? Should settlers, those that were born in the West Bank, maybe two generations?
Or are they to be permanently regarded as refugees?
Voting rights are determined by the particular state.
In the United States, illegal aliens are not allowed to vote. I am assuming that the settlers in the OT are considered illegal aliens under Palestinian law–I say this because international law considers them illegal residents of Palestine.
Within Israel, current Christian and Muslim Palestinians are not considered illegal aliens under Israeli law. Thus, they are allowed to vote.
Are Israeli citizens who are Christians and Muslims allowed to vote in Palestine elections? I have no idea, but many nations would allow that. For example, Iraqis in the US vote in Iraqi elections.
And of course, the US allows any citizen living abroad–Jewish, Christian, or Muslim–to vote in US elections.
Settlers are covered under Israeli law while the Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem are under military law, or something like that. Whatever it is, there are definitely 2 distinct legal systems operating in the OPTs.
“ambiguous descendants”???
Great way to lead the way to mutual acceptance and understanding there, Mahatma. There is nothing “ambiguous” about the descendants of Palestinian refugees. Most of them are registered. Its not like no one knows who they are. At the very least you could acknowledge that they aren’t “ambiguous” at all, but are living breathing human beings with all attendant human rights.
Of course the definition of who is a descendant of what land area with the implication of right of return to any part of the land area is ambiguous.
I think Israel should offer a right of return to those individuals that were born in sovereign Israel (defined at the green line). But, that is a relatively small number.
The question though was whether descendants of removed or voluntarily leaving former residents have a right of return by international law.
Its been asserted here often. I don’t see it.
There is another very large gap in understanding regarding occupation between liberal Zionist perspective and Palestinian solidarity.
That is that Palestinian solidarity describes the occupation as an occupation of a formerly sovereign land, which is just untrue. The Palestinian aspiration is a new thing, a present thing. To my mind and undeniable thing, but not resting on the past, resting on the present and future.
Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, other locales should have the option of returning to sovereign Palestine when it forms as expedited citizens, or to citizenship in the land of their birth.
Again, the denial of citizenship to Palestinian Lebanese that were born (often now two generations in) strikes me as cruel, and more disenfranchising than the denial of right of return to Israel.
I don’t understand the silence of Palestinian solidarity on that.
Its not ambiguous at all. There is a large list of registered refugees. All, according to international law, and the Partition Plan that the hasbara fruitcakes claim Israel agreed to, were entitled to citizenship in the land in which they were born. If that land was part of what became Israel, then they are by rights citizens of Israel. And if they are citizens of Israel, denied their rights of citizenship for 60 odd years, then those rights extend to their descendants who would likewise be citizens. Only when the right has been acknowledged and voluntarily declined is the right of further descendants extinguished. There is nothing ambiguous about this. It simply goes against your wishes and prejudices and so you find it hard to understand because you are overly vested in not understanding it.
Israel has once offered the Palestinians a referendum regarding their choice for citizenship…these remnants have already refused, and thus waived. They have no more basis to claim…Rather they should raise their claims to those who promised them otherwise…
I didn’t know humans could waive their human rights.
“Israel has once offered the Palestinians a referendum regarding their choice for citizenship…these remnants have already refused, and thus waived. They have no more basis to claim…Rather they should raise their claims to those who promised them otherwise…”
Zamass
———————
What the hell are talking about? What referendum, when and how? Stop making things up, retard!
“I think Israel should offer a right of return to those individuals that were born in sovereign Israel (defined at the green line). But, that is a relatively small number.
The question though was whether descendants of removed or voluntarily leaving former residents have a right of return by international law.”
That’s what Olmert offered and was rejected.
There is nothing in international law about descendants of refugees having a right of return.
The offer of right of return to actual displaced should then stay on the table, so that the next Israeli government that has enough electoral support can enact it in fact.
Olmert, like Barak, offering at the eleventh +59th hour is only a gamble, not an actual proposal.
Yeah, that’s a good solution. Sorta like giving native Americans who were displaced to reservations the rights of US citizens and special privileges awarded to only native Americans (e.g., gambling casinos)–but not their kids.
That will work!
One of the things least (almost never) mentioned in US media is the issue of water — the chief reason Israel is so determined to maintain control of the Jordan River valley. Numerous Israeli leaders have repeatedly made clear that they have no intention of ever surrendering their control of fresh water in the West Bank. Today, Israel robs Palestinians of a huge percentage of their water and then sells it back to them. Past plans for Israel’s apartheid wall showed it cutting off Palestinian access to the Jordan River. After Jerusalem and the right of return, water is probably the hottest issue. It is absolutely the least acknowledged issue. And, arguably, given the long-term issues of the Middle East and especially of Israel-Palestinne, it is the most important point, even if most people get far more incensed over Jerusalem and the return of refugees.
The tell-tale sign of Obama’s commitment to Palestinian rights or anything like a solution is just for Palestinians will be how an American-proposed agreement treats water. It is the issue that is under the radar (more or less). It’s the issue that the Americans and Israelis will count on idiotic, incompetent, corrupt Palestinian leadership dropping.
Who cares about Cobban and Bishara have to say? Are they going to sit at the negotiating table? What matters are the party who will do the negotiating? What does the PA says? How about Hamas?
You prefer the conflict to continue for ever and ever?
No. What matters is that the US role changes from acting as “Israel’s lawyers” to
being an objective facilitator fully informed by international law. What’s the point if Obama acts like Clinton did?
Ouch! Writing too fast. Sorry for the typos Time for bed!
Who cares about what Cobban..
Yikes, we need an unsend button.
Keep drinking that cooking sherry, ruth, it’s saturday night afterall.
Kane’s assertion that Fayyad and Abbas are quisling, compel the Israeli conclusion that there is no unified partner for peace.
It is ironic that he sought to confront that relative to Arafat, but ends up supporting the Israeli right’s theme by denouncing Fayyad and Abbas and Fatah in general.
It takes an election to discover the will of the people. But, a prerequisite to a viable election, is the actual process of willingly abandoning militia activity and revolutionary intent when entering the electoral process.
Hamas didn’t do that in 2005. It stated that it regarded prior law as not binding, prior treaty, prior policy.
Revolutionary national, not electoral.
Did Zionists abandon militia activity in 1948?
“But, a prerequisite to a viable election, is the actual process of willingly abandoning militia activity and revolutionary intent when entering the electoral process.
Does that mean the Israeli 2009 elections were invalid Witty, or revoltionary )as oposed to electoral) seeing as both parties were trying so hard to outdo each other with their declarations of militarism…oh wait…Im getting ahead of myself. We’re talking about Palestinians, not Israel, so I’m using the wrong standard and set of rules.
What was I thinking?
“”Hamas didn’t do that in 2005. It stated that it regarded prior law as not binding, prior treaty, prior policy.”
False. In 2005, Hamas declared a unilateral ceasefire, which Israel violated in 2006.
I think Kane and Cobban and the rest are trying to ensure the best and fairest deal for the Palestinians.
There is an interesting piece in the Politico by Laura Rozen describing the Administration’s thinking on the critical error that Netanyahu made in renouncing the Road Map. According to Dov Weissglass, the Administration has interpreted the renunciation of the prior agreements to also make null and void any prior understandings during the Bush Administration about settlement blocks being incorporated or grandfathered into Israel. So all that settlement treachery with Elliott Abrams and his back room deals regarding “facts on the ground” in respect of which Ariel Sharon said “we get to keep every hill we grab” is up in smoke.
link to politico.com
Why are we crossing this bridge before we’ve even got there?
Berzi is NOT Obama. He’s a consulant on the I/P conflict.
Seriously, I can’t see Obama offering the lousy Clintonian package when he knows well it just ain’t gonna work for the Palestinians. Why would he bother doing this mind-fuck work for a failed plan? He doesn’t exactly have the psycological profile of a self-saboteur.
I really think this article and discussion is premature because the Obama peace plan IS NOT on the table yet. No one knows what Obama will come up with yet. All we know is that Israelis are more nervous than Palestinians are – they keep telling us so themselves.
Well, you never know.
Depends on whether Obama is a greater master of spin and deception than Clinton. And, perhaps, he could be.
MJ Rosenberg also has a hopeful post at TPM.
It is impossible to know whether the US senate would be able to work through the hysteria of the lobby as he and mr levy hope. Sadly, regardless, I think that the nay sayers are right.
I remain troubled by how far the camp david and taba discussions that are the basis of the new ‘plan’ were from what would be the minimum, reasonable needs of the Palestinians, keeping in mind that they have already agreed to the unconscionable loss of 78% of their original territory. I have read in detail both the Geneva initiatives’ proposal, and critically the 2010 report “Getting to the Territorial Endgame” by the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy of Rice University, which outline the basis of the compromises needed to create a potential Palestinian territory.
Based on the discussions around these projects and the american lead I simply do not accept that the right of return is the fundamental problem. This right has already been sold in principle in return for compensation, again in principle.
Conversely the release of Barak’s papers from camp david make it clear that the demand for a ‘jewish state’ is being made purely in order to prevent agreement.
The real problem is that the “territorial exchanges” and control of the jordanian border are not minor issues, and the sides are not close. The difference between the 1.9% offered by mr abbas, and the Israeli supposed offer of over 7% is huge. The maps make it clear that the Israeli approach
1. would provide only minimal palestinian access to jerusalaem, which could be blocked at any time.
2. would maintain sharon’s fragmentation of the west bank.
3. would include continued military occupation of a substantial fraction of the WB and the jordanian border
4. would include continued israeli control of the water, airways, electromagnetic spectum and borders
5. dramatically rewards the israeli illegal behaviour of the last 60years.
In other words what is still being proposed and is conceptually acceptable to Israel is not a state, not even a demilitarized state, but a series of dependancies. Far from rationalising the border, it would exaggerate the weirdness of the 1967 border, with the known, overt intention as spelt out by mr sharon, to restrict palestianian movement.
I don’t know what mr netanyahu’s actual minimum goal is. Based on his statements and those of his colleagues, I think that it is to annex 100% of the expanded ministate of jerusalem, but who knows.
The Palestinian approach of offering citizenship to the settlers with the very minor adjustment of less than 2% in the border is far more statesman like and workable, and would be far more in accord with international law.
I do not live there, and cannot say whether having a partially occupied, economically nonviable, limited sovereignty dependency on perhaps two thirds of 22% of their former land is worth it to the oppressed people who actually live there. This is not the best of all possible worlds. However, history says that this type of approach of deliberately humiliating the losers is usually unstable.
Hoping that I am wrong
Sadly, you’re not wrong, southern observer.
You’re not wrong. Just for a sick laugh, here’s that old Israel lawyer Elliott Abrams today, shaking his hammy fist at Obama and friends for preventing the Palestininans
from agreeing to sit down at the peace table by publically talking about Israel’s continuing settlement expansion “for natural growth.”
link to diogenes-honest-politician.blogspot.com
Seems like the great American patriot Mr Abrams is really annoyed because
the American establishment may actually be waking up just a tad from it’s half century sleep regarding Israel:
“It means they’re questioning some of the assumptions they inherited,” said Daniel Levy, a former Israeli peace negotiator and co-director of the Middle East Task Force of the New America Foundation.
“It seems they’ve realized that some of those assumptions — that the Israelis and Palestinians could do this on their own; that they could gradually, incrementally build confidence between the parties without addressing the big questions — may have been wrong,” he said.
“What’s remarkable is that it was what the neo-conservatives did to the US under Bush and what Bibi Netanyahu did for Israel in the last year that has produced this moment of clarity,” Levy noted.
“The neo-cons helped clarify what so much of the national-security establishment, including Centcom and the former national security advisers, has been saying — that resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is central to US security interests throughout the region, while Netanyahu helped clarify how entrenched Israel’s addiction to settlements and occupation is and that incrementalism has no chance in the face of that addiction. You therefore need an assertive intervention.”
link to electronicintifada.net
Any call for the expulsion of Jews from Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria should be met with calls for expulsion of Arabs.
We have to be equal in our calls for mass expulsions and making refugees of people in their homes. If it’s ok to do it to Jews it’s fine to kick out Arab squatters from Jewish land.
But you already expelled the Arabs UNIX. Wasn’t it you that sad 2 wrongs don’t make a right?
Should Jewish squatters be removed from Arab land UNUX? Why are you so obsessed with a Zionist apartheid state?
First remove the American squatter out of Texas. The current president of Mexico is just a puppet who has accepted an unjust solution.
Mexico isn’t asking the US to give ANY territory back. The regions you mention are peaceful and prosperous regions where EVERYONE gets a vote and a say.
This your Mexico-USA analogy is stupid and clearly desperate.
NO WHERE ON THE PLANET IS CRUEL COLONIALISM PRACTICED EXCEPT FOR IN ISREAL.
You guys have that criminal distinction, not us here in America.
This much we’ve already established through fact.
But hey, don’t let facts fool you now eh?
Mexico isn’t asking the US because it is led by puppets and traitors. Who cares what the elites say? No.
Unite Mexico and the US one. That is the only way to get justice.
Wollt ihr den totalen Krieg, BSDNow?
Drop it, and permanently, UNIX.
You are advocating for the rejection of Torah in that, not in fact a form of actual support for Jewish community.
Where’s Lawrence Of Arabia when you need him?
You mean Laurene of Jurabia?
the foundation for a legal sweeping of all the palesinians seems to be a behind the scene move that is now being made into some reason for jordon and egypt to aquire the entire populous in small comunities and villiages little by little as well as simply deporting the original populous at random,…and this being pushed as a peace is like,”get on the train” by non other than rahm’s lap dog obumer. There will never be any accountibility no matter when they own the icc too. The palestinians should just sell all and get out of dodge why not let them have it all to build the temple, there is no god anyway so the reality of the teachings that are misleading,(when you use them as a title to land) they are ridiculous and obsurd…but then again…….nothing changes except the players we are allowed to see.
Out side of this post, my condolences to the Polish people.
Obama has just announced that he has approved the extra-judicial execution [call it murder] of an American citizen. A lot of people projected their hopes onto him. They are now being disappointed. The U.S. government’s purported affection for “rule of law” only applies to others [other than the U.S.G and other than Israel].
stevelaudig, outside of the fact that there is no “rule of law,” only the same empowered people who hide behind the rubric, why expect anything more? The idea of the rule of law is about as valid as wage employment, which says there is no one ruling over you there, just the profit principle.
This is getting somewhat repetitious, but here it goes –
“Normative rules are determined by power relations. Those with power determine what is legal and illegal. They besiege the weak in legal prohibitions to prevent the weak from resisting. For the weak to resist is illegal by definition. Concepts like terrorism are invented and used normatively as if a neutral court had produced them, instead of the oppressors. The danger in this excessive use of legality actually undermines legality, diminishing the credibility of international institutions such as the United Nations. It becomes apparent that the powerful, those who make the rules, insist on legality merely to preserve the power relations that serve them or to maintain their occupation and colonialism.”
THE LOGIC OF COLONIALISM
I also endorse the one state solution, that is as a just solution to the problem of immigration and land theft the US and Mexico must become one state. The current two state solution is extremely unjust. The US has taken huge parts of Mexico including Texas and much of California and is not willing to give them back because it cannot remove the settlers from there.
Please US, lead be example. Once you show us that the one state solution works and that the US-Mexico is a successful country, we will try the one state solution too. Otherwise, but out of our business, hypocrites.
No one will be considering your judojihadist opinion when Israel is dismantled.
The difference is, that no one is considering your opinion now!
That is the way I like it.
Unite Mexico and the US. Only one state will bring justice!
Most Mexicans love Americans and American culture.
Most of the world hate Israeli Khazars for their CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, as poll after poll informs us.
I guess THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE my inconsequential self-hating Khazarian village idiot who keeps pulling his/her analogies out of their beeeehind.
And while most (white) Americans deride Mexican culture, it has been a big influence on the shape of our country and our culture.
The piece treaty the US would impose on the Palestinians on Israel’s behalf should not be confused with a peace treaty.
Barack Obama is a consummate hypocrite. The first thing which needs to be done, prior to any new peace proposal, is to end the blockade of Gaza and stop Israel’s ongoing ethnic cleansing. Unfortunately, the U.S. continues to support Israel in its crimes of aggression, as well as our own Imperial aggressions.
Pingback: Promised Land » Blog Archive » Obama plan a good idea for both Palestinians and Israelis / a response to Mondoweiss
Pingback: Obama plan a good idea for both Palestinians and Israelis / a response to Mondoweiss - Blog Post
Pingback: Right of return and international law– why the Clinton Parameters are a problem
Pingback: Barack Obama is speaking the language of Israel-firster Dennis Ross
Pingback: Barack Obama is speaking the language of Israel-firster Dennis Ross. By Alex Kane « Kanan48