Haaretz gets Partition wrong

Eldad Yaniv in Haaretz is trying to save Partition, save the two-state solution. None of that desperation has yet come to the U.S., where we don’t have a clue about the crisis. It will come soon. Peevish post: Note that Yaniv gets the #s wrong on Partition. It gave more than half the land to Jews, who then comprised about one-third of the population. Yes I know, a small point, but it is evidence of the imbalanced history here. And young Americans should be aware of same as they look at the idea of a “Jewish democratic” state that is more Palestinian than America is Afro-American… Yaniv’s SOS:

In 1947 the world ended the refugee life of the Jewish people, when it decided on the division of Mandatory Palestine and the establishment of two nation states. A moment before Israel turns into a binational state, the world has returned to the old and courageous option: dividing Mandatory Palestine into two nation states…

Every Zionist understands that Israel is not withdrawing and certainly is not giving in to the Palestinians. The opposite is true: the Palestinian liberation movement is the one admitting that the Zionist liberation movement achieved a historic victory that changed reality, both in the War of Independence and in the Six-Day War. The world, which in 1947 divided the country with our consent – 55 percent to the Arabs and 45 percent to Israel – is now proposing a new, almost incomprehensible division: 78 percent to Israel, 22 percent to Palestine.

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.
Posted in Israel/Palestine | Tagged , , , , ,

{ 48 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. Gellian says:

    Here’s an innocent question. How much of the land that the Jews got during Partition was good land, with water, agriculture, etc.? I was in Israel about 7 years or so ago and went to the Negev (= desert). Jesus what a dump. It’s totally useless. If the Jews got mostly Negev-type land and the Arabs got the good stuff, or vice versa, that might explain the column in Haaretz.

    Just asking. I have absolutely no idea myself.

    • Mooser says:

      Gosh, I’m no expert, but if I remember sort of correct, that Partition was not strictly adhered to.

    • annie says:

      Here’s an innocent question.

      i doubt it. if you’ve been there you wouldn’t be asking that.

    • Avi says:

      Gellian,

      You’re trying so hard to hide your agenda that your comments are inconsistent with each other and are full of direct contradictions.

      • Gellian says:

        Say what?

        I don’t have any agenda at all. I’m just not as fevered in my opinions as many comment-ers on this site are.

        I asked in genuine curiosity, how did it shake out? I don’t know. It looks like neither you nor Annie (who wrote in an earlier reply to me that she doesn’t actually know much about history) do, either.

        The difference between you guys and me, I would guess, is that I’m not shrill in condemning the state of Israel, not as shrill as either you guys or even as shrill as Phil has become. I’m sure you think that’s a fault, or indicative of some agenda. I just disagree. I think Israel has lots of great things about it. In fact if I could I’d say we ought to try to lure all the secular Israelis over here to the U.S. so they could work their technical magic here and benefit the rest of us. The religious nutters of all stripes are free to fight over the patch of sand that’s left.

        And yes, I do think justice for Palestinians is paramount. But demonizing Israelis or Jews ain’t the way to get that. Facts and history are.

        • annie says:

          The difference between you guys and me, I would guess, is that I’m not shrill in condemning the state of Israel, not as shrill as either you guys or even as shrill as Phil has become. I’m sure you think that’s a fault, or indicative of some agenda. I just disagree. I think Israel has lots of great things about it. In fact if I could I’d say we ought to try to lure all the secular Israelis over here to the U.S. so they could work their technical magic here and benefit the rest of us.

          how unique.

        • eljay says:

          >> In fact if I could I’d say we ought to try to lure all the secular Israelis over here to the U.S. so they could work their technical magic here and benefit the rest of us. The religious nutters of all stripes are free to fight over the patch of sand that’s left.

          A little too much bias in that question. Secular Israelis (presumably the “best of the bunch” over there) get to come to America, but everyone else – “religious nutters of all stripes” and any other kind of non-Israeli person – is condemned to remain in the region and “fight over the patch of sand that’s left”.

          >> And yes, I do think justice for Palestinians is paramount. But demonizing Israelis or Jews ain’t the way to get that. Facts and history are.

          Jews aren’t being demonized. As for Israelis, the expectation is accountability to international law. I’m surprised anyone would consider that to be “demonizing” or, in the words of that great “humanist”, RW, “vengeance”.

        • eljay says:

          >> A little too much bias in that question.

          Correction: A little too much bias in that statement.

        • tree says:

          I think the difference between you and other commenters here is that you are very uninformed and think that that is a plus not a negative. There is lots of information out there, and I don’t see you looking for it.

          Calling other more informed commenters “shrill” is not indicative of someone who wants to be informed. Its more in line with someone who wants to maintain her illusions by denigrating others. If you can label them as “shrill” you don’t have to listen to them, right?

          I think Israel has lots of great things about it. In fact if I could I’d say we ought to try to lure all the secular Israelis over here to the U.S. so they could work their technical magic here and benefit the rest of us.

          That’s the pure bigoted hasbara that you’ve picked up willingly. Those secular Israeli Jews are so much smarter than anybody else, including religious Jews! I think you need to take a good look in the mirror. and confront your own biases. And get some education. If you really think that facts and history are the way to get justice for Palestinians, then why are you wallowing in ignorance or asking others to do your research for you?

        • annie says:

          excuse me gellian, i’m still choking over your use of the word “natives” in our conversation about colonialism the other day.

          yes, i have been there. i traveled around a bit. i wasn’t in the negev most of the time although i did stay in the negev on a beautiful permaculture farm for a few days. here are some photos. go to the jaffa link to check out the orange groves tree references. haifa is another valuable link to view how those “natives” were living prior to their liberation.

          either way, the grass is always greener in the areas you want to colonize. once the settlement cover every hilltop it will be the valleys that have been denied them all along.

        • Gellian says:

          “A little too much bias in that question. Secular Israelis (presumably the “best of the bunch” over there) get to come to America, but everyone else – “religious nutters of all stripes” and any other kind of non-Israeli person – is condemned to remain in the region and “fight over the patch of sand that’s left”.”

          Whoops, you’re right. I see now this looks like I mean that all Palestinians are religious nutters. I don’t think that and don’t want to suggest it. So let me take that back.

          What I should have said is, …and leave all the religious nutters of all stripes behind.

          As I say, Palestinians deserve justice, and the same respect that all human beings deserve. We should work for that, and I apologize for suggesting otherwise.

        • Avi says:

          Gellian November 23, 2010 at 5:20 pm

          And yes, I do think justice for Palestinians is paramount. But demonizing Israelis or Jews ain’t the way to get that. Facts and history are.

          Which is what this website aims to achieve. But you are neither interested in history, nor are you interested in facts. The fact is that the occupation and settlement and land theft of the West Bank is textbook colonialism. But, “that’s not helpful” according to you.

          You make it seem as though commenters on this website are conjuring up false accusations and making things as they go along.

          So, cut the charade.

    • tree says:

      Most of the land the UN partition allotted to the Jewish State was prime agricultural land, and it contained most of the very profitable Arab-owned orange groves . It was also mostly owned by non-Jewish Arabs and it contained nearly as many non-Jews as it did Jews. This was the 55% of the land as Jewish State and 45% of the land as Arab State that the partition proposed, despite the fact that Jewish ownership of the land was around 7% of Mandatory Palestine. The partition plan did not sanction ethnic cleansing and in fact gave every inhabitant the right to remain in whatever State he or she ended up in.

      However, prior to Israel’s declaration of Independence, the pre-state Jewish forces started attacking and expelling Arabs both from the lands designated as part of the proposed Jewish State and from lands designated as part of the proposed Arab State. Israel grabbed 78% of Mandatory Palestine. The vast majority of the fighting in 1948 occurred in the proposed Arab State when Jewish forces attacked and forced the ethnic cleansing of the native Arab Palestinians.

      (Interesting side note: Despite the hasbara line that the Jews “made the desert bloom”. for the firs several years of Israel’s existence, it owed its economic solvency to two things: the money granted to it by Germany for “reparations” and the orange groves, and other businesses, confiscated from the Arabs.)

      The world, which in 1947 divided the country with our consent – 55 percent to the Arabs and 45 percent to Israel – is now proposing a new, almost incomprehensible division: 78 percent to Israel, 22 percent to Palestine.

      Besides getting the first set of percentages backward in the quote. Yaniv is also propagandizing that Israel gave its consent to the 55/45 split which is belied by the fact that it almost immediately began usurping territory that it was not assigned. And 78% to Israel has been the existing reality since 1949. Why does he insist it is “incomprehensible”? I have NEVER heard one Israeli, official or otherwise, state that Israel give back the additional 23% it usurped from the proposed Arab State. That” Israel deserves it”, despite the fact that it most assuredly was an acquisition of territory by war, has always been the prevalent unquestioned assumption of Israel and its supporters. And of course the assumption that Israel also “deserves” Judea and Samaria as well is now becoming prevalent among a large contingent in Israel.

    • tree says:

      I was in Israel about 7 years or so ago and went to the Negev (= desert). Jesus what a dump. It’s totally useless.

      But, but…. Israel “made the desert bloom”!! You must be mistaken.

      • Gellian says:

        That is what I am trying to figure out. There ain’t nothing blooming in the Negev. (BTW, thanks for the info — it’s good to hear from someone who actually knows the facts.) The Negev is as crappy as Jordan is just across the border, where there are huge stretches of absolutely nothing. It makes the outskirts of Tucson look like Disneyworld. No cactus, no water, no nothing. It definitely isn’t something any secular person would bother fighting over.

        That said, when I did go to Israel, I was stunned by how much Tel Aviv looks like Manhattan. I don’t know what it looked like when it was still Jaffa or whatever. But I can’t possibly believe that it looked like that when the Arabs had it. Maybe it would look like that now if the Arabs had kept it; parts of Saudi Arabia and a few other Arab cities (at least on TV) look kind of like that. But most of the ones I’ve been to don’t look anything like that. Cairo is perhaps the filthiest, most desolate city I’ve ever been in my life, and I count Tijuana in that group.

        Annie and I guess you, tree, imply that the Jews ‘didn’t make the desert bloom’. Well, they didn’t do that, not as far as I can tell. But I gotta say, Tel Aviv and Haifa are some damned impressive cities. They look nicer than a lot of the ones over here (stateside, I mean).

        That’s what I can’t figure out about the way this site has gone. There’s no nuance anymore, or appreciation for what Israeli society in its finer capacities has produced. There’s just demonization. Most of the guys I grew up with are deadbeats; one actually shovels dirt for the city for a living. Meanwhile my Israeli-born-and-educated neighbor **designs and builds robots** for a living.

        Is there nothing to admire about Israeli society? I think a lot of it is impressive. As I keep saying, though, stealing Palestinian land definitely ain’t one of them. But demonizing everyone in the entire country, one and all, is not going to accomplish anything. Demonizing me as having some hidden agenda, beyond trying to figure the situation out, really isn’t going to get anyone anywhere.

        • Avi says:

          That said, when I did go to Israel, I was stunned by how much Tel Aviv looks like Manhattan.

          Dude, if you think Tel-Aviv looks like Manhattan, then you’ve either never been to Manhattan, never been to Tel-Aviv or are lying on both accounts.

          Most of the guys I grew up with are deadbeats; one actually shovels dirt for the city for a living. Meanwhile my Israeli-born-and-educated neighbor **designs and builds robots** for a living.

          That’s an interesting one sample survey.

        • Avi says:

          Is there nothing to admire about Israeli society? I think a lot of it is impressive. As I keep saying, though, stealing Palestinian land definitely ain’t one of them. But demonizing everyone in the entire country, one and all, is not going to accomplish anything.

          There’s a difference between demonizing and seeing poll after poll and survey after survey that show that anywhere between 70 to 95% of the population support this massacre or that massacre, support segregation or ethnic cleansing in the form of the euphemistically known Transfer.

          But, I can assure you, your heartfelt concern is noted.

        • Danaa says:

          Gellan, I beg to differ both about the “impressiveness” of Tel Aviv and Haifa and about the wisdom of “making the desert bloom”.

          When I was last in Israel, a couple of years ago, I couldn’t help but notice the awful architecture of the new apartment houses and condo buildings springing up seemingly everywhere, the complete inattention to landscape and/or attention given to urban living spaces, the lack of parks contrasted with the newly abundant parking garage. The most noticeable thing about Israel’s new buildings is indeed, the absence of space, and here and there a phony grandiosity of design. What I saw is lots of malls that were way too crowded for my taste, uncreative, oppressive looking office buildings – made to look like faux-Manhattan, yet towering over 1940 and 1950′s era 2 story crumbling faded looking apartment buildings, neighbourhoods on the verge of gentrification. I saw high rise tenements on the outskirts of the city that seem destined to become the slums of the future, and somewhat better looking high rise apartments buildings dotting every urban space. The beaches of Tel Aviv and Netanya overbuilt to the max, turned into asphalt zones, with a few patches of sand in between, visible when not covered by the sunning human sea, both asphalt and humans stretching all the way to the edge of the water. Even ona sunny day the beaches seem to live in the shadow of over-sized, over-built hotels, looming over every square inch of beach front property.

          In the streets – the vaunted lively main streets of Israel, it is indeed crowded, Very much so. Between the crowds and the malls Tel Aviv had the look not of Manhattan but of Hong Kong.

          What I noticed especially – it was hard for me not to, animal person that I am, is the litter and the armies of stray cats, uncared for, feeding on garbage, abandoned, mean, and despised. The stray cats of Israel – an apt mirror held up to the population, who, when not spending time in cars, honking, unsafe, and uncivilized can be just as overbearing and rude, whether in the car or outside. If one was not inclined to believe that noise pollution can be detrimental to one’s peace of mind, I’d advise a trip to Israel complete with immersion in the native’s lives.

          That’s the Israel I saw and I found most place in and around Tel Aviv hard to relish, unless I put on those rose colored glasses of the jewish american-zionist-in-thought-but-not -deed tourist. Yes, there are a few quaint spots left, a few island of beauty, and one can even see a patch of green here and there. And some people are neither rude nor uncivilized, and are in fact quite pleasant and fun to talk to. Some people are also kind enough to stop whatever busyness they engage in to give directions to a stranger who asks (that would be me, wandering the streetss looking for remnants of what once was). Sometime I got the overall impression iof a country built by – and perhaps for the nouveau-riche and the moguls of bought and paid for-tastes.

          I am sure others see much good all around, and not a few spots of beauty. I did not visit Jerusalem this time around or Tveria, which I used to like well enough. Perhaps it’s better there. And I did not find haifa a appalling and unappetizing a I did Tel Aviv.

          As for “making the desert bloom” – is that really such a good idea given the coming brutal climate? Perhaps, just perhaps, the Bedouins may yet have much to teach the rest of us. That is when we tire of turning deserts into las vegas strips, only to see them reclaimed a decades few in the future.

        • Shingo says:

          “I don’t know what it looked like when it was still Jaffa or whatever. But I can’t possibly believe that it looked like that when the Arabs had it. ”

          You’re right, it was actually more beautiful.

          Here you go. It looked like Venice only greener.

          link to lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com

          link to lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com

          “Is there nothing to admire about Israeli society? I think a lot of it is impressive.”

          The same could have been said about German society in the 1930′s.

    • David Samel says:

      I’ll take the bait and give an answer to your question, agenda or not. It may not be the right answer, but it’s Dershowitz’s. At a recent debate, either with Susan Abulhawa or Scott Horton, he said that 55% of the “arable” land went to the Arab State and 45% to the Jewish State. (I think he might have added that nobody wanted the Negev, and Ben Gurion reluctantly took it – something like that). That was the first time I had ever heard the breakdown in “arable” land, and I considered it the latest addition to the hasbara repertoire. Considering the source, there is no reason to credit this claim anyway. It’s obviously an answer to those who think the 55/45 breakdown in the other direction was unfair. I have no idea why Haaretz got it wrong.

      • tree says:

        You may be right in describing Dershowitz’ rationale about “arable” land, but it just show how dishonest he is. Large potions of the Negev are in fact “arable” in that crops can be grown there, although the lack of rain is a limiting factor. The Negev Bedouins have led a semi-nomadic pastoral agricultural way of life that was disrupted by Israel in its quest to dispossess and dispel the indigenous Bedouins and replace them with Jewish only settlement. During the 1948 war, one of the first areas where the IDF burned Arab crops was in the wheat fields of the Negev, and latter Israel harvested similar crops in the area (as well as other confiscated Arab crops) to alleviate the food shortages it suffered from. More recently, the Israeli government has aerially sprayed Negev Bedouin crops with herbicides to thwart their attempts to cultivate the land they have lived on for centuries, which Israel insists is State land which does not belong to them. The land is arable. Dersh is probably relying on people’s ignorance of what “arable” means and what the Negev is, in order to tout this new bit of hasbara.

    • pjdude says:

      the negev was land that was conquered in their war of conquest

  2. eee says:

    A common misconception is that the partition took land from anybody. It merely decided in which country ones land would reside. All Arab owned land prior to the partition would remain owned by Arabs after partition. The only thing the partition would change was which country the land would be in but NOT the ownership of the land.

    • Mooser says:

      Well, look who’s back, for our edification! “eee”! Or did somebody slip up and grab the wrong handle?

    • Koshiro says:

      Except that proto-Israel immediately started expelling Arabs from its “share”.

    • annie says:

      All Arab owned land prior to the partition would remain owned by Arabs after partition.

      well, the zionists certainly decided to scrap that.

    • Avi says:

      A common Habsara lie is that the partition was a just allocation of land.

      Hint: It wasn’t.

      Land owned by Jews in 1947

      UN Partition Plan of 1947

      • eee says:

        The partition was allocation of land to a state, NOT confiscation of land and giving it to another. Arab land allocated to the Jewish state would still be owned by its original Arab owners and the same goes for Jewish land in the Arab state.

        • eee hasbara confronts facts. brain explosion ensues.

          Four Israeli laws form the legal basis its land policy:

          * Basic Law establishing the Israel Land Administration (1960)
          * Israel Lands Law (1960)
          * Israel Land Administration (1960)
          * Covenant between the State of Israel and the World Zionist Organization (establishing the Jewish National Fund) (1960)

          Governance

          The Israel Land Council sets policy for the ILA. It is chaired by Israel’s Vice Prime Minister, the Minister of Industry, Trade, Labor and Communications. The Council has 22 members; 12 represent government ministries and 10 represent the Jewish National Fund. The Director General of the ILA is appointed by the government.

          Exclusion of Foreign Nationals

          Under Israeli law, the Israel Land Administration cannot lease land to foreign nationals, which includes Palestinian residents of Jerusalem who have identity cards but are not citizens of Israel. In practice foreigners may be allowed to lease if they show that they qualify as Jewish under the Law of Return.[2]

          Exclusion of Arab citizens

          Not a single new Arab town has been established since Israel was created in 1948, but the city of Rahat. In January 2010, a bill proposed by Ahmed Tibi, an Arab Member of the Knesset, that called for land to be allocated equally to Jews and Arabs was rejected by the Ministerial Committee for Legislation. The bill was designed to provide counterbalance to a bill passed two weeks earlier that states that reception committees of Israeli communities can exercise discretion as to who may reside in their towns. According to Haaretz, “One consequence of that [the latter] bill is that Israeli Arabs would not be able to live in those towns if the reception committees decide so.”

    • pjdude says:

      except in the jewish state which was gerrymandered to make sure the jewish population would have a majority wouldn’t have respected those property rights. almost all of the agricultural land was in the hands of arabs and there was no way they were going to let that stand even if they didn’t decide to go to war. secondly while the jewish argeed to a partitian to gain political control they were only 70-% of the poplation the arabs didn’t want to give up any of their land which they had been promised over 30 years before hand

  3. eljay says:

    >> The world, which in 1947 divided the country with our consent – 55 percent to the Arabs and 45 percent to Israel – is now proposing a new, almost incomprehensible division: 78 percent to Israel, 22 percent to Palestine.

    Ain’t self-(self-)determination grand? But…is 78% truly enough for this nayshun, this peeple? And who are these Jew-haters, who wish to impose their “international laws” on Israel, the Gawd-Promised Land? To them, I say: Blue dot! San Remo! “Remember the Holocaust!”

    Oh, and ethnic cleansing is “currently not necessary”.

  4. yourstruly says:

    Regardless of what Haaretz hopes for, the Zionist enity (not its people) is headed for the dustbin of history. Considering how much bloodshed and destruction Israel’s 62 year existence has caused, the settlers (every Israeli Jew except for those actively supporting justice in Palestine) should be counting their besttings, since they’ll be getting off scott-free. Except, that is, for those who committed crimes against humanity.

  5. pabelmont says:

    The world partitioned (or proposed the partition of) Palestine in 1947 not only because (and perhaps not principally because) of the Holocaust and Jewish refugees, but because of Jewish terrorism which persuaded war-weary Britain to withdraw, leaving the problem of militant (and state-hungry) Jewish zealots to the UN. The UN did its nifty 55%/45% trick perhaps because it believed that the Jews would otherwise make trouble and because they believed the Palestinians would not fight back. How tired everyone was of war in those days. It didn’t work.

    Today, there is some Palestinian terrorism (not much) but it doesn’t begin to persuade anyone to re-partition Israel, neither the old 55% Israel nor the new 100% Israel. Because they don’t want to be bothered by Israel fighting back.

    Mad dogs often get their way, let justice be as it may.

  6. Shunra says:

    I don’t think anything Eldad Yaniv says can be taken at face value. In an interview to Haaretz last Friday he took credit for the “no partner for peace” spin which led to the 2nd Initifada.

    In my opinion, Eldad Yaniv should be tried for treason, because of this “spin”, as he calls it, which put the immediate electoral needs of Ehud Barak ahead of the diplomatic efforts to achieve a peaceful end to the occupation of Palestine – how many people died because of this?
    And it’s not only my interpretation, he said so himself, in an article by Shay Fogelman.

    Quote: “: “אחרי קמפ דיוויד, למשל, אמרנו שאין פרטנר. הייתי מהיוזמים של הספין הכוזב והאומלל הזה. היתה לו אולי הצדקה מסוימת, לעורר את הפלסטינים להקים את המשא ומתן לחיים, אבל זה ספין כוזב. מה זאת אומרת אין פרטנר?” From here: link to haaretz.co.il

    • Avi says:

      Shunra,

      Good stuff. Why didn’t you translate Yaniv’s words? I mean, he does a good job of indicting himself:

      After Camp David, for example, we said there was no partner. I was among the initiators of that mendacious and pathetic spin [...] But, it’s fallacious spin; [how can there be] “No partner”?”

      • Shunra says:

        Thanks for translating that, Avi! I really should have.

        I’ve been puzzling over the legal definition for the crime he committed by doing what he did. Treason is the best I can come up with.

  7. RoHa says:

    “In 1947 the world ended the refugee life of the Jewish people”

    So all the Jews who were born, and brought up, and lived comfortable, flourishing, successful, respected lives in Australia (and many other countries) were actually refugees?

    Funny definition of “refugee”, then.

  8. Parity says:

    Dershowitz also got the partition figures reversed, I noted in the last Mondoweiss video of him (the “literary” discussion with the Palestinian author). Perhaps this misconception is widely held in the Jewish community. And to think that Dershowitz is considered by many in the Jewish community to be an expert. One can’t trust anything he says.

    • David Samel says:

      Parity, I noticed the same thing, but listened again and realized Dersh was talking only about “arable” land. So without mentioning that the total split was 55% Jewish, he simply said Palestinians got 55% of the arable land, and either in that debate or another, said that nobody wanted the Negev anyway. As for not trusting what he says, I can only add that if you’re at all suspicious, you can reasonably rely on his dishonesty. Fact-checking Dersh is endless fun for masochists.

      • tree says:

        Yep, Dersh is being dishonest. See my post above about the existence of arable land in the Negev. and on his point of “no one wanting it”, I’m sure the indigenous Bedouins wanted it. And Ben-Gurion lived in the Negev and always considered it important to Israel.

  9. The Negev was close to 50% of the mandated land to Israel, and only around 5% of that land is habitable and a smaller portion is arrable.

    Of the other 50% of the mandated land, the best land was originally nearly equally allocated, but the West Bank is generally not as habitable with more limited water access than on the Israeli side of the green line.

    The partitions, 47 and 49 armistice, include some land that is preferable on average to Israel, and more that is preferable to Arab (Palestinian or other).

    With the Israeli control of the Golan highlands and the Jordan Valley, Israel controls most of the source above ground water, and some of the ground water. (Lebanon also controls sources of Jordan and other surface water.)

    Water is a fight.

    It is onesided in Israeli military control. The distribution of the mandatory land is NOT accurately represented at 55/45 (47) or 78/22 (67).

    It would be wonderful if those that advocate for “justice”, advocated for “justice for all”, and not only “justice for me” or “justice for my adopted side”.

    • Gellian says:

      Richard,

      Do you realize that in asking for justice for the Israelis, you would effectively be asking for them to be rolled back from lands they’ve taken and occupied? In other words, ‘justice’ for the Israelis would mean a worse standard of living.

      I think that’s a very fair point! But is it the one you meant to make?

    • pjdude says:

      Witty your problem is you seem to think justice demands positive outcomes for everyone but that simply is not the case. when somepeople have acted in illegal and amoral ways justice takes away from them. just because the jewish invaders of palestine lose their loot doesn’t mean they didn’t get justice.

  10. eljay says:

    >> It would be wonderful if those that advocate for “justice”, advocated for “justice for all” …

    Those who advocate for real justice advocate for the upholding of laws and legal precdents, and accountability for transgressions against said laws and legal precedents. There is no “for me / for my adopted side”…unless one is a “humanist”, in which case real justice becomes fraudulent “justice”.

    DON’T FEED THE TROLL!!!