Some of the many parallels between the Egyptian people's pursuit of freedom, now so honored in our country, and the pursuit of freedom by their neighbors, the Palestinians, forever dishonored:
1. "Dignity." In his fine speech today Barack Obama said the core principle of the Egyptian revolution was human dignity. "This is the power of human dignity, and it can never be denied."
But Palestinian dignity has been repeatedly assaulted by the Israelis, as Judge Goldstone wrote in his landmark report on the Gaza conflict, a report Obama has sought to block at every turn. In Gaza:
[The blockade] has been described as a crisis of human dignity... The dignity of the people of Gaza had been severely eroded.
And the West Bank:
Where checkpoints become a site of humiliation of the protected population by military or civilian operators, this may entail a violation of article 75 (2) (b) of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions ... which outlaws “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment”.
2. Teargas.
In a hearing yesterday by the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Howard Berman said that American teargas was being used in the suppression of demonstrations in Egypt, and the U.S. should not allow this to happen. I hear about American teargas all the time in news reports, and threats to American military aid.
As Adalah-NY has documented, American-made teargas is regularly used against nonviolent demonstrators in the West Bank. One Palestinian woman was lately killed by the gas. In 2009 her brother was also killed by a teargas canister fired at his chest. And earlier this year Cooper Union student Emily Henochowicz lost her left eye after Israeli forces fired a teargas canister that struck her in the head. A couple of years ago American Tristan Anderson was maimed by such a canister.
Where is Berman? Where are our media?
3. Nonviolent demonstrations. The beautiful throngs in Egypt were nonviolent. Salute them, yes! They have been honored for this around the world.
Well, in Palestine, the protest of the occupation is also nonviolent, the Palestinians have shown incredible restraint, there are Gandhis all over the West Bank protesting the confiscation of land, water, crops, and homes. The Popular Committees regularly hold demonstrations against occupation. And these demonstrations are routed and attacked by the Israelis without any recognition from the American government or media.
4. Prisoners.
Tonight on CNN, there were references to hundreds of political prisoners in Egypt. Israel has held thousands of Palestinians in prison, many for political "crimes." Their cause is never championed. I urge all readers who are new to the double standards in this post to look at P.J. Crowley of the State Department saying NOTHING on behalf of imprisoned nonviolent protester Abdullah Abu Rahmah recently when AP's Matt Lee valiantly asked why American government was doing nothing on his behalf.
5. Elections. Everyone is celebrating free and fair elections. And American leaders are even showing respect for the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood will participate.
Do I have to remind you that Hamas is little different from the Brothers-- an Islamist party that rejects connections to Al-Qaeda? And the free and fair election by the Palestinians of Hamas in 2006 has been rejected by the U.S. and Israel and resulted in their fostering the division of Palestinian society and isolating Gaza from humanity. Furthermore, elections inside Israel proper routinely disfranchise Palestinians, inasmuch as Arab parties are never included in governing coalitions. No, Jewish parties get together, from right to left-- Labor and the religious right-- to build a majority coalition that will not include the Arab parties. (Think the Democratic Party 1964, when they refused to seat the black Mississippi Freedom Democrats in the presidential nominating process; that's where Israel is).
6. Sticks. Great honor attaches to those demonstrators who attacked the thugs who thundered into their lines on horses and camels last week. They beat them with sticks, with anything they could grab, right? And journalists admire them and show their headwounds.
Well when the flotilla from Turkey tried to bring supplies to the blockaded people of Gaza last May, Israeli commandos descended on one of the boats in international waters and killed 9 people-- and American media and Israeli media tried to make hay of the fact that some people on the boat, who were sworn to nonviolence, had attacked the marauding soldiers with sticks.
7. 'N stones. When the thugs tried to take Tahrir Square back from the people, the people fought with stones. And the back lines brought stones to the front in blankets and crates. The front lines fought valiantly. These acts were honored around the world. Journalists did not criticize these fighters, they celebrated them.
Well, kids in occupied Silwan, a Palestinian village in illegally-annexed East Jerusalem, who object to the Israeli colonists moving into their neighborhoo sometimes throw stones at them and they are arrested and attacked for doing so, and they are treated in our media as miscreants. And during demonstrations in occupied Bil'in, kids often do the same thing, throw stones at soldiers who are firing teargas at them; and even this website has conducted long agonizing debates over whether they are not hurting the Palestinian movement. The idea that it might be justified? Not a word in our media.
8. Occupation. Last night Hosni Mubarak, trying to summon his countrymen to his side (and failing), stated that the proudest moment of his life was ending the occupation of the Sinai and raising the Egyptian flag over it once again. That occupation lasted 15 years. The Palestinians have lived with an occupation for 44 years; and they have no sovereignty at all. What about their pride?
9. Martyrs. How many times have you heard our reporters use this word? The media do not blink when Egyptians speak of the 300 victims of the Mubarak police and thugs as martyrs. They lifted the oppressor's hand with their deaths, and we can honor that.
But when the word martyr is used in Palestine, it freezes the American blood. And comparing numbers, what about the 300 children of Gaza whose lives were extinguished in 22 days of overwhelming assault by the Israelis 2 years ago? Children. I'm not even counting the adults. Without a word of complaint from our president.
10. Arabic. Have you noticed all the reporters using Arabic words? Bless them. It is a great trend. America will fall in love with the Arab world, I tell you.
But when you hear them chant El horriya from deep in their throats, remember that at demonstrations, at prisons, at checkpoints and at walls, Palestinians also issue this cry, they want freedom too!
When will this ghastly double standard end?
Thank you, Phil. Brilliant, moving, and true. Thanks to you, to Adam, and to all who write here, for your ceaseless work helping the people of Palestine and Egypt, as well as the world, set themselves free.
The difference, as you say, Phil, is that the U.S. press stopped censoring the facts about Arab humanity during the revolutions of Tunisia and Egypt. Soon the corporate-public media will follow your lead, celebrating the liberation of the Palestinian people from Israeli Occupation, as well.
Thanks. dear friends.
hope you’re right, Susie, and you’ve been a big part of the Change!!
I wish I’d done anything like what you, Adam, everyone who adds to this dear site, and the brave souls of Palestine and Egypt–and beyond–, have done for love, life, and human rights for all. I’m in awe of you, every one.
you rock my world phil weiss
make that ‘our world’
It hasn’t dawned on the mainstream media yet, because they are just awakening from their long ziocaine-induced slumber. But every one of these ten parallels ring true.
The crude Ethan Bronner-style hacks trying to marginalize and smear Palestinians striving against Israel’s siege as ‘Hamas militants’ are going to be unmasked — starting today.
Egypt’s revolution has handed Palestinians a blueprint for freedom. The Israeli-American media will strive mightily to suppress their voices and bury the ugly truth — that Israel is every bit as oppressive and cruel a client as Mubarak’s Egypt.
But as Egypt’s example showed even during the internet blackout, silencing people is impossible. And so the Israeli-American government-media axis may end up like Egpyt’s Nile TV channel, stripped of all credibility in front of a watching world as its obvious lies and selective coverage are exposed. Let ‘em bleed!
When I first saw the video of the dance routine performed by IDF soldiers on duty in Hebron, I was reminded of a passage from the “Report of the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights, John Dugard, on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967″, E/CN.4/2004/6, 8 September 2003:
link to unispal.un.org
>> When will this ghastly double standard end?
You might want to ask RW this same question, especially in light of his statement regarding the Egyptian “revolution”.
There are things similar about Palestine/Israel and Egypt.
And, there are things that are very very different.
What is the same is the urge, the need for freedom and what freedom brings.
If you believe in both Marx and Maslow, then freedom is a secondary need, following personal survival, security. Control over the means of production for example is relevant only in the setting where class relations creates a poverty. Where the means of production creates universal prosperity, there is no need of revolution.
So, the buzzwords of dignity, martyrs, occupation are subjective words.
The main difference between Egypt and Tunisia and Israel/Palestine is that the nature of the conflicts were/are oppression by one faction of their own people over another in the case of Egypt and Tunisia, and conflict between one people and another people historically in the case of Israel/Palestine.
The activists here that seek to encourage uprising among Palestinians, and that obviously includes Phil, evoke conflict. They describe conflict, conflict that actually exists.
Sometimes they invoke that there is no real conflict, that “only if” Israel didn’t exist (it is more than implied, including by Phil), that Palestinians would be free. That may be true. Maybe if Israel and Israelis didn’t exist, Palestinians would just be free.
But, the truth is that there is real conflict, there is history of Israel harming Palestinians (one state/people harming another people, not just one’s own), and there is history of Palestinians and solidarity (Arabs, Islam, radicals) harming Israel and Israelis.
If you want to change the nature of conflict, you mediate. That is DIFFERENT than revolution. There is no veil that if lifted is seen as freedom (analogous to the Marxist shift between monopoly capitalism and monopoly socialism).
There is no veil that could be lifted in Israel/Palestine that would not leave conflict to mediate, to reconcile. And, the remedy to conflict is not pressure (that is MORE conflict). Any that declare that they are vanguard, and that that veil can be lifted by BDS or statements of delegitimization or contempt, is lying.
Activists may be telling the truth about specific ills, and BDS may be applicable for specific components of oppression. But, the remedy to conflict is mutual humanization (and it must be mutual), not demonization.
The feature that is laudable about the Egyptian revolution was that it was genuinely non-violent. Egypt demonstrated that it is post-Islamicist, post anti-Zionist.
Fundamentally oppression or fundamentally conflict?
“Egypt demonstrated that it is … post anti-Zionist.”
Sorry. I missed that. I saw the Egyptians telling Israel’s partner in crime to go. I didn’t see the bit where they said “but Zionism is fine”.
I think Witty is referring to Omar Suleiman. I can’t imagine who else he thinks fits the mold of compliance to Zionist domination of US/Israeli interests.
Witty: “What is the same is the urge, the need for freedom and what freedom brings.”
What is also the same is that the US government has financially and diplomatically enabled the oppression of the Egyptian and Palestinian people for decades.
Witty: “The feature that is laudable about the Egyptian revolution was that it was genuinely non-violent. Egypt demonstrated that it is post-Islamicist, post anti-Zionist.”
The feature that is most notable about Zionism has been that it has been primarily violent land & resources theft. Israel has demonstrated that it is post-Enlightenment, post-Nuremberg principles; in fact it retains pre-Enlightenment & pre-Nuremberg principles. It is an aberration, regressive, not progressive in the march of all humanity towards universal human dignity. Man does not live by bread alone.
RW
“If you want to change the nature of conflict”
You’d get the hell outta Palestine and stop stealing. Hasn’t been tried yet
““only if” Israel didn’t exist (it is more than implied, including by Phil), that Palestinians would be free. “
You do have evidence implicating Phil in what you’ve implied? Yes?
The feature that is laudable about the Egyptian revolution was that it was genuinely non-violent.
The Egyptian protesters defended themselves with rocks and sticks. When Palestinian boys do that in response to IDF tear gas and rubber bullets fired at non-violent Palestinian protests, you insist that the protest is not “genuinely non-violent”. More double standards, Richard.
….you’re still here?
Still think 300 million Arabs don’t deserve a voice or freedom and democracy because Israelis get the shivers at the mere mention of the idea?
And anti-Zionists all the way. Don’t kid yourself.
An eleventh parallel between Egypt and Palestine is poverty and unemployment. Egypt’s poverty was caused by a kleptocratic oligarchy; Palestine’s is induced by Israel’s comprehensive lockdown.
Israel complacently assumed that with Mubarak guarding the back entrance, it could imprison Gaza in a hermetic vacuum, as a cautionary lesson to the West Bank about the costs of not collaborating and voting as you’re told. Deprived of trade and materials, most of Gaza’s population subsists on aid. This is poverty not only of income, but spiritual poverty.
The landlocked West Bank is completely in Israel’s thrall, at least until conditions change in authoritarian Jordan (its only other border). But Gaza, which now has a window to an incipiently democratic Arab republic across its border, could be a lever to demolish the grandiose Israeli-American delusion of imposing a hundred-year siege until the last Hamas member dies of old age.
Egypt’s transitional regime will be cautious about normalizing trade with Gaza, as it does not want to be responsible for destabilizing the region by allowing Hamas to acquire heavy weaponry. And the US, doing Israel’s bidding, will surely try to use its aid to Egypt as a lever to keep Gaza isolated. But it’s hard to believe that a democratically elected government in Egypt would accept such an odious demand to oppress fellow Arabs. If nothing else, rich Turkey might offer to make up for any lost US aid, after the brutal Israelis stupidly shot up the Turkish aid ship Mavi Marmara, killing several Turkish citizens.
Thus Gaza, which importantly is no longer occupied by Israel — merely besieged by it — can be the lever to free Palestine. Seeing Gaza freed, West Bank Palestinians will hardly accept the compromised status being offered in the peace talks, of being imprisoned between Israel and a US client state.
What’s so wonderful about this turn of affairs is that the arrogant Israelis are caught with their pants around their ankles, totally unprepared as the rug is jerked from under their feet. Make no mistake: the 43-year-old occupation is on the line. And when the truth about its brutality and ugliness starts getting out, no force on earth can save it.
The landlocked West Bank is completely in Israel’s thrall, at least until conditions change in authoritarian Jordan (its only other border).
You do know that every “peace” proposal Israel has made includes “temporary” Israel control (for 20 years or forever, which ever comes last) over the Jordan Valley , thus making the West Bank completely surrounded by Israel, in classic Bantustan style.
At present it (the Jordan Valley) is under the full control of Israel. Jordan, the country, is not the problem there.
First Tunisia
Then Egypt
Now Palestine
when will the double standard end?
why not the way the children of the nile did it
for starters, our youth do their thing on the social sites, facebook, you tube, twitter and such
putting out videos with stories of palestinian martyrs
material readily available
one every other day being the going rate of martyrdom
which will be upsetting
thougts, such as
“what’s this all about?”
“why should one care about these others?”
others?
given that you are I, I am you, we are one
Excellent points Phil. It has been painfully obvious for a few years that the biggest advocates of Gandhian nonviolence have been the Israelis. Should a Palestinian teenager throw a stone, then he no longer has any rights and can be shot down in the streets. See how it is, if someone deviates from principles laid down by that great man, then it becomes an excuse for the Zionists to engage in brutal repression.
Now we have just witnessed the acts of many thousands of Egyptians, against incredible odds, physically resisting the security police. And their resistance involved throwing their bodies against police lines, hurling rocks and, yes, physically fighting (violence folks) the Mubarak thugs that were sent out to clear them from Tahrir square. We all support these people in what they did.
Now is the time to support those Palestinians who decide not to go limp in the face of Israeli police violence even if some of the younger protesters happen to throw a few rocks. Gandhi wouldn’t approve, but just like in Egypt today, we should support the Palestinians in their quest for freedom.
This is an extremely important point. In the thread above there is a mini debate over this. It should have been obvious in NY during the 2004 Republican Presidential convention, how easy it is for our state to emasculate pure non violent protest. Remember that day. The police set up those wire cages and ushered all of the non-violent, Gandhian inspired protesters inside, and completely neutered whatever protest message they were trying to make. They just sat there in those wire cages and were completely ignored.
Contrast that to the WTO Seattle protests a decade back. There was some serious street actions that shook that institution to its foundation. To this day they not dare show their faces in any major city on earth.
“Contrast that to the WTO Seattle protests a decade back.”
The street actions caused the WTO civil disobedience to be utterly dismissed. You live in an ozone.
Once again, Mr. Weiss, you’ve taken thoughts occurring to many of us and put them into a semblance that is powerfully reasoned.
One of the other memes the media keeps batting around this past week is the dread that a new Egyptian government might discard the Israel-Egypt Treaty of 1979. I wrote today, asking the question “Is Israel in Violation of the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty?”
Do I have to remind you that Hamas is little different from the Brothers– an Islamist party that rejects connections to Al-Qaeda? –Philip Weiss
I could use some reminding. I thought that the MB has rejected violence and that Hamas is still committed to using violence to eradicate Israel.
I thought that Hamas has strong ties to Iran and that Iran sends shipments of arms and money to Hamas. Does the Muslim Brotherhood have ties to Iran and receive arms and money from them?
Hamas is still committed to using violence to eradicate Israel.
source?
source?
Hamas Charter good enough?
triple yawn
Hamas has agreed to a resolution of the conflict where Israel withdraws back to the 1967 line and allows Palestinians to establish a free and independent state. Israel continues to refuse to speak to Hamas and continues to impose a siege on Gaza’s 1.5 million inhabitants.
I told you yesterday that you were still stuck in 2004. Well, I was wrong. You’re stuck in the late 1980s.
fuster
“Hamas Charter good enough?”
No
Article Thirty-One: “As to those who have not borne arms against you on account of religion, nor turned you out of your dwellings, Allah forbiddeth you not to deal kindly with them, and to behave justly towards them; for Allah loveth those who act justly.” (The Tried – verse 8).”
Do you read the fine print in your housing loan or just the bits that make you feel good
The US Congress is still stuck in the same 1980s, as well as the MSM, especially FOX cable TV News entertainers.
Avi : I told you yesterday that you were still stuck in 2004. Well, I was wrong. You’re stuck in the late 1980s.
++++ I vote much more earlier happening. Symptoms indicate very strongly to good ol’ Flat Earth Society.
Oy. So, that’s 6000 BC?
Annie,
Khaled Meshaal put those rumors to rest during an interview with Charlie Rose in May of last year:
link to charlierose.com
Bloomberg News reported:
thank you hostage. yes, i’ve linked to that excellent interview more times than i can remember. meshaal has such dignity. can you even imagine the best of israelis and the best of palestinians merging minds. wow i would love to be a fly on that wall.
instead we have livni and bibi and addas, fayyed.
such a pity when both israelis and palestinians have so many sparkling gems. someday…please oh lord let it be.
Meanwhile, Charlie Rose almost looks like he cares sometimes.
yes he does citizen.
Ahem. Since I guess you didn’t know.
Oh yeah, I remember Glen Beck and Hannity and Maddow and Wolf B telling us all about that last summer.
(Mayhem in Gaza: After hours of fighting Friday, Hamas’ security forces were able to crush an uprising by gunmen associated with al-Qaeda, in the wake of a provocative speech by a local imam critical of Gaza’s current rulers. At least 16 people were killed in the clashes and more than 80 were reportedly wounded.)
I know that Israel has strong ties to the US and that the US sends shipments of arms and money to Israel.
…and because of Israel’s serial abuse of human rights the transfer of arms is illegal under both US and international law, prompting Amnesty International to call for an arms embargo against Israel in 2009 after their latest slaughter in Gaza. Download their report and read all about it (Iran even gets a mention, but sadly – for you – not the Brother Muslimhood):
FUELLING CONFLICT: FOREIGN ARMS SUPPLIES TO ISRAEL/GAZA
Sumud,
One of the unmentioned legal problems with the blockade and arms embargoes has been the disproportionate impact on the Palestinian people and their legitimate right to self-defense. Despite reliable reports of malnutrition and collective punishment, the international community has done little but complain about Iran’s attempts to send arms and money to the de facto government of Gaza.
In the Bosnian genocide case Judge Elihu Lauterpacht explained that, while the supremacy clause in Article 103 of the UN Charter prevails over other conventions, it does not prevail over the norms of customary international law. He said that the Security Council arms embargo had been illegal. The Security Council had in effect required the member states to assist in Serbia’s genocidal activities, while denying the Bosnians the ability to exercise an inherent right to self-defense. So, even the Security Council is bound unconditionally by customary norms and their decisions are subject to judicial review. One of the most important norms is reflected in Article 3 of the Montevideo Convention:
Apparently Palestinians are supposed to behave like fish in a barrel.
Thank you Phil…
Thank you thank you.
And by the way, did anyone else see Anderson Cooper start out his show tonight with the words“sabah al-kheir” in Arabic? He was on fire tonight…. the Egyptian Revolution has completely shattered the US media meme. Palestine simply cannot be far behind…
Will he be pleading with his network bosses, “Please, please-don’t touch my face, err, wallet!”?
I watched Cooper yesterday and had the same impression: he’s gone Egyptian.
Phil, that’s a good summary of the double standards, of the hypocrisy that which the American media/government establishment exudes.
Thanks Phil. Don’t feel I need to say anything more!
x2 – except great catch on number 6: Sticks. I had thought of most of the others over the last few weeks but that parallel never even crossed my mind. Good to see these parallels laid out together.
Palestinians should be free. Lets make it happen.
Israelis should be free. Lets make it sustain.
In logic, its an #and# statement. They can ONLY happen together.
“Yeah, you blend.”
You acknowledge reality, and renounce imposing a political form onto an unwilling people. You sound more neo-conservative than liberatory.
“You acknowledge reality, and renounce imposing a political form onto an unwilling people.”
I’ve never seen you show any regret that the US and Israel undermined the results of the Palestinian election of 2006.
Richard, Israelis are NOT currently free, so it’s not a question of “let’s sustain it.” No people that oppresses another can be free. I hope one day you will truly be able to grasp this. Freedom for all is the ONLY path to true freedom for one or the other people.
I agree with you wholeheartedly about pursuing freedom for all. I wish you would adopt that.
My equation was an #and# equation, articulating self-governance (freedom) for all.
The equation that seeks the end of Israel as Israel (rather than the reform and establishment of consented borders) is an effort at oppression.
It is NOT “freedom for all”.
“The equation that seeks the end of Israel as Israel (rather than the reform and establishment of consented borders) is an effort at oppression.”
In other words, any attempt at coercing Israelis into treating Palestinians as equals and allowing them to return to their homeland is EVIL in Richard’s eyes.
The argument against a one state solution can be made without RW’s hypocrisy. The argument is simply that it might lead to a horrific civil war. And part of the cause for this hypothetical war would be the Israeli unwillingness to see Arabs as equals, while another part would be religious fanaticism (possibly from both sides). Whether this argument is valid I don’t know, but given what’s happened in other countries one should take it seriously. RW, though, isn’t satisfied with a purely pragmatic argument because it doesn’t leave him feeling good about Zionism–he’s got to make the case on some high-falutin’ ground of “self-determination”, which boils down to the notion that Israelis have the right to kick Palestinians out of 78 percent of their homeland and not allow them back.
So in other words only jews get to ignore reality and impose a politcal form onto an unwilling people. Sorry but no matter how much you want it to be the path to peace is not to reward criminals for their crimes
It’s Israel that imposes a political form onto an unwilling people.
No it isn’t. doing away with an entity that’s very existence denies another one of their essential rights as a people of a territory is freedom for all and is not opression. the rights of the criminal do not supercede those of his victim
It’s Israel as Israel that oppresses. Self-governance is not a blank check–please review the Nuremberg Trials, Dick Witty.
The reason that it could lead to a horrific civil war is because it is fundamentally unjust to impose.
Israelis in the PRESENT have the right to self-govern.
To oppose the right of a people to self-govern, and where they live, is not progressive by any definition that I can discern or respect.
You speak of a double standard. But, your accusation is entirely about an event in the long past (before I was born). The present is where democracy exists.
Don’t rationalize an oppression of another in the present, on the basis of a past narrative (which if you look is a conflict).
Jew don’t get to impose. In the present, the task is to create a Palestinian nation, not to destroy a Jewish one.
its the same thing ignore the man behind the curtain. Israeli/jewish crimes don’t matter. to think justice should reach them is in your mind criminal.
witty a people getting their legal rights( such the right to return to ones home after war, the right to return to one’s country, the right to regain lost property from thieves, the right of self determiantion) is not nor can not ever be opression. it is not good enough that your and yours have stolen the palestinians property but you demand their rights for selves is the highest of evils
just because you dislike what justice demand for the level of crimes of Israel doesn’t make justice”unjust” in your mind the punishment given to criminals must be approved by them
I’d love to live in your world where a chosen people can jsut wave their hand and go we didn’t do this and have people believe it.
Pjdude,
I favor the rights of Palestinians to assert their rights in a color blind court of law, for title to land that they have claims to.
It occurs on a case by case basis, and remedied on a case by case basis.
It is nowhere near clear that family resident by permission of an absentee owner, that is displaced has title rights to land.
As far as the right to reside in Israel (a separate question), if there is no remaining home to return to after now 60+ years, how is there a right to return to it?
I know it sounds cruel, but it is the fact.
And, I don’t see how in any condition, proposing a remedy that proposes to forcefully remove millions in the present can be described as just in any definition.
The agitation, the effort, to remove millions is a CURRENT effort at ethnic cleansing, that you get to rationalize as just because of a past outrage.
Another remedy is more just.
“Israelis in the PRESENT have the right to self-govern.”
And no one is suggesting that they be deprived of the vote.
probably after such time that Israel can destroy all record of palestinians in palestine.
in other words anything to extend the time of justice so records can be destroyed
maybe maybe not. but the absenttee owner laws were gamed and all it takes to void the title for the purchaser is to show the either the sell hadn’t the right to sell it or for it to be showed that the puchaser was notified to a contesting claim or could be reasonable expected to know of a contesting claim. the idea of a bona fide purchaser is the basis for property law. and the JNF was certainly not a bonefide purchaser. the main reason it went to the absentee “owners” is because they knew the people who worked it would give it up for their want. So the purchasing was not only know to for a contested title is was sole done to get around the people they wished to ethnically cleanse
on in the diseased morality of your head is it a fact. the fact that they were able to destroy the homes they stole doesn’t negate the right of that home’s owner to return to his property.
I fail to see why the return of palestinian property would result in the expulsion of millions. are you trying to say that many Israelis live on illegally aquired stolen land? all I want is for title to the lands and property to revert to their rightful palestinian owners and they be allowed to live on that land( where that is no longer feasible to your faith’s crimes I think a home should be bought for them at the expense of the state of Israel) and where ever possible to keep the Israeli in the territory. unlike you I am not cruel for the sake of being cruel simply because another has a different faith.
are you really arguing that so much of Israel is illegally aquired territory? all I wish is for those who have no legal right to property be removed so that its rightful owners can have access to their property. I fail to see why that is that much of a deal. You only have to worry about millions being harmed if the country you defend has committed serious crimes against the palestinians.
letting criminals reap the rewards of their crimes while leaving the harm to their victims unrectified is not justice nor just. its a crime in and of its self.
Witty,
In the absence of a two state solution, there is no reason that refugees and persons of Palestinian nationality can’t assert equitable claims to “state land” in Israel too, not just to private property. Even after Israel adopted its own citizenship law, its “Absentee Property Law 5710-1950″ continued to discriminate against any “Palestinian citizen” who had left his ordinary place of residence in Palestine to live in any part of Palestine outside the area of Israel.
In 1926 Norman Bentwich was the Attorney General of Palestine. He explained that the coming into force of Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne on August 26, 1924 allowed the three governments of Palestine, Syria, and Iraq to issue Nationality Acts. According to Bentwich, the guiding principle adopted was that Ottoman subjects habitually resident in the detached territories became ipso facto nationals of the state to which the territory had been transferred. Bentwich said the Nationality Laws transformed the de facto change into a change de jure. See Bentwich, Norman, 7 Brit. Y.B. Int’l L. 97 (1926) Nationality in Mandated Territories Detached from Turkey link to heinonline.org
So, descendants of Palestinian refugees inherit a nationality with its bases in international and Israeli law. Bentwich also explained that in accordance with Article 60 of the Treaty of Lausanne, Palestine was an allied successor state to the property and possessions of the Ottoman Empire in “State Succession and Act of State in the Palestine Courts”, XXIII Brit. Yb. Int’l L. ( 1946) 330, 333. link to archive.org
Under the Ottoman system of usufruct, Arab tenants lived on properties owned by the Sultan and other notables that appeared on the Ottoman civil lists. Under governing law, the tenant cultivators had acquired legal rights in most of the so-called “State lands of Palestine”
So if someone had tried to impose a political form of equal rights regardless of creed on the nazi regime pre-WWII, you would have opposed it because the Germans were unwilling.
RW, I don’t know what effort in this blog there is “to remove millions” that you refer to. The enforcement of the right of Palestinians to return doesn’t mean that Jewish Israelis have to leave, just that they would have to give up state-enforced racist ways.
How can you argue in good faith that the nazi holocaust was just fine because it happened before you were born? And let’s say your proposal that mass murder, terror and confiscation of property, homes businesses in the Israeli/Zionist cause to “purify” Israel of it’s non-Jew can be made good by allowing some subset of the Palestinian population to keep some of their property and live in their land, then what’s wrong with letting others use mass murder, terror and ethnic cleansing?
I just don’t understand your logic of saying that past mass murder, terror, killing and expelling people on the basis of religion is just fine but present/future mass murder and ethnic cleansing should be stopped. Especially when your main condition for stopping the present/future ethnic cleansing are:
- that the victims of the past ethnic cleansing agree to give up any claims they have to rectify the past ethnic cleansing, and
- those who engaged ethnic cleansing both in the past and currently get to maintain racist laws and state-sponsored superiority based on religion/ethnicity
true. I am probably by far one of the harshest people here. and I’ll be the first to defend jewish involvement in the government of palestine. I just don’t think they should have supremacy
that not entirely true. where it can be shown a legal title to the property by palestinians who wish to return and having a family other than those with the title in there( which lets be honest is going to be jewish. ISrael doesn’t expell arabs from their homes to put other arabs in them) is going to have to be removed and it will be legal too. while the number of jewish people living in such conditions probably does reach over one million they have probably destroyed enough records and buildings so that returning the palestinian owners is going to be next to impossible.
lyn117,
The Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity stipulates that there is no statute of limitations for “eviction by armed attack or occupation and inhuman acts resulting from the policy of apartheid, and the crime of genocide”. Witty may claim that there is no double standard, but I’ll only accept that proposition when suspected Israeli war criminals are pursued with the same amount of vigor as John Demjanjuk.
I favor the rights of Palestinians to assert their rights in a color blind court of law, for title to land that they have claims to.
really? with palestinian judges? no, i didn’t think so. so if you want it to be colorblind let’s nix israeli judges too. you know what? I favor the rights of Israeli’s to assert their rights in a color blind court of law too, for title to land that they have claims to.
so we both advocate for a ‘colorblind’ unbiased court (an international court would be appropriate) to make a judgment about who has rights on that land.
okay.
I think it should be noted here that the vast majority of Israelis living in the West Bank do not own the land on which they live. The lands are leased from the Israeli government or quasi-governmental agencies, which confiscated them from their Palestinian owners. In other words, and Witty’s favorite ones it seems, settler Israelis don’t have “title” to the land on which they live, and the same goes for Israelis within the green line.
In a one state solution, with equality for all, there is no reason to Israelis to leave the state, unless they can’t stand living on an equal footing with the Palestinians, in which case they can choose to leave. The that choose to stay may be allowed to remain in their illegal settlements if the owners of the property are duly compensated and Palestinians are allowed to live there as well(they can pay the owners instead of the state to remain in their homes.). If this is truly what you want for the settlers Richard then you should be working for the one state solution and equality.
In a two state solution, Israel will have to return the land it confiscated, which means evacuating its citizens from that land. Richard, maybe you should abandon your support for the two state solution and embrace the one state. It would be much more liberal and humanist of you to do so.
If the one state came about by consent of the governed in fact, I would embrace it.
Is it?
If not, then it is an imposition. And, it is an #and# statement, requiring acceptance by both communities.
Something like 80% of Jewish Israelis live on trust land, held by NGO’s advocating for Jewish residence on the land.
The reason that their rights to continue to reside by a color-blind democratic court, is that such courts hold that dispossession is a last resort, not a first as you suggest by your political polemic.
It works both ways. Thats what color-blind law is.
There was a comment earlier stating that early Jewish purchase of land was invalid because it was a sale from an absentee owner to a Jewish owner (Zionist).
That is an ODD interpretation of law.
Something like 80% of Jewish Israelis live on trust land, held by NGO’s advocating for Jewish residence on the land…There was a comment earlier stating that early Jewish purchase of land was invalid because it was a sale from an absentee owner to a Jewish owner (Zionist).
richard, lots of jnf land was confiscated from palestinians and held in ‘trust’. it was not all purchased.
The reason that their rights to continue to reside by a color-blind democratic court, is that such courts hold that dispossession is a last resort
what are you talking about?
so we both advocate for a ‘colorblind’ unbiased court (an international court would be appropriate) to make a judgment about who has rights on that land.
do you agree?
If the one state came about by consent of the governed in fact, I would embrace it.
The state of Israel did not come by consent of its governed either. But you have made no secret of your love for it (jewel, etc.).
Do you see no hypocrisy in that?
Something like 80% of Jewish Israelis live on trust land, held by NGO’s advocating for Jewish residence on the land.
Replace “NGO” with quasi-governmental and “advocating” for with enforcing and you have the reality on the ground.
No no no that is not at all what I said. Witty what I said it was invalid because the sole intention of going to the absentee “owner” was to get around the people on the land who legitmiately thought they had title to the land. the fact they knew the title was contested and bought it is what make it invalid.
witty is grossly misinterpting the law as usual. color blind courts do not view dispossession as a last resort or to be more accurate they do view dispossession of illegally aquired goods as a last resort. it actualy the first resort. witty thinks the courts uphold a right to stolen property
And still it is people that live there.
If the one state came about by consent of the governed in fact, I would embrace it.
Is it?
If not, then it is an imposition.
And, it is an #and# statement, requiring acceptance by both communities.
Again, Richard, this is another example of your double standard. Israel did not come about by consent of the governed. It was a very violent imposition that involved the ethnic cleansing of the majority of its inhabitants. And yet you excused that because you believed it the founding of Israel to be an ultimate good.
So you’ve already established that you have no objections to an imposition if it leads to an ultimate good. But then you argue differently claiming a non-violent resolution, which would allow all inhabitants to live equally in Israel regardless of religion or ethnicity can not be done because it is an imposition, since you assume that the majority of Jewish Israelis will never agree to it. Your rationale that an imposition is allowed if it creates a greater good suddenly disappears when you think it might be Jews that would be imposed on. You have no objections to the imposition and ethnic cleansing wrought on the Palestinians, its just the possibility that something might impose on Jewish Israelis that bothers you, even if the imposition is merely to have to live under the same “color-blind” rules and laws as non-Jews in Israel.
Something like 80% of Jewish Israelis live on trust land, held by NGO’s advocating for Jewish residence on the land.
Most of it is either held by the ILA or by quasi-governmental agencies such as the JNF. Neither of these are NGO’s, they are a part of the government of Israel.. And “advocating for Jewish residence on the land” is a euphemism for “advocating for segregation and discrimination against Palestinians”. Your approval of this again belies your claim to “liberal humanism”
The reason that their rights to continue to reside by a color-blind democratic court, is that such courts hold that dispossession is a last resort, not a first as you suggest by your political polemic.
There is no “color-blind” court at present in Israel. The courts, like the rest of the government, favor Jews over non-Jews and have little trouble in using dispossession as a first resort when it involves non-Jewish residents.
Dispossession would not be a first resort under a one state solution, but since in most case the property was illegally seized from private owners, they have the right to reclaim their property. Anything else is unjust. In the US this is one of the rationales for title insurance. If you bought a piece of property from someone who did not have the right to sell it to you, you do not get to keep that property. You get compensation through title insurance. In this case Israel would be the one paying compensation, either to the rightful owner or to the person who loses a home through imperfect title. This is not ethnic cleansing. The person retains the right to live in the country, he or she is just possibly denied the right to live in a house that was never legally his. THIS is what a color blind law is. Not one that dispossesses Palestinians for “security” reasons, or because they are not allowed a permit, but refuses to dispossess a Jewish Israeli who resides on land that belongs to someone else.
There was a comment earlier stating that early Jewish purchase of land was invalid because it was a sale from an absentee owner to a Jewish owner (Zionist).
I didn’t make that comment, but my interpretation of what was said was that some of those “absentee” owners did not have legitimate title to the land, but rather had phony land titles or registrations. So those sales were illegitimate. In any case, whether that’s true or not about some of the sales, less than 7% of Israeli land was purchased, whether legally or not. The vast majority was stolen from individual Palestinians by the government of Israel.
Thanks once again, tree, for taking the time to respond to Richard’s same tired, old non-argument. Shmuel, you and others have repeated yourselves on these points time after time. He will skulk off, and then pop up again a few days from now, hoping you (and others) are not paying attention.
The value in your calm, resonable explanation of the facts in that you are teaching the other tens of thousands who visit the site. Every time he brings it up, you have a chance to reach a large and growing audience.
irrelevant. jewish squatters don’t have a right to live in palestinian homes.. and no just because you tear down their house doesn’t mean they don’t have the right to return to THEIR country to THEIR property and to live and work on it.
“In this case Israel would be the one paying compensation, either to the rightful owner or to the person who loses a home through imperfect title.”
This is a reasonable remedy. It differs from your language.
If you actually read my posts, you would note that we are in more agreement than disagreement, though we use very different language to describe similar substance.
And yes, words matter. Use of polemic conveys a disregard for law, specifically.
The rights of the living are important. No color-blind court would disregard the rights of residents for the rights of former residents.
On the question of sovereignty, the question of single-state versus two-state, you have not addressed the issue substantively, as much as your blocker North, supports you.
The legal points that you raised relative to individual land claims deserve to be raised, and should get the light of day in a color-blind court system.
North,
You continue character assassination rather than addressing points.
And lying to do so. “skulking off”.
Pjdude,
Your statements are advocacy for war and ethnic cleansing in the present.
“their” country is a fascist theme, not a democratic one.
The democratic vision is one-person one-vote. The one-state democratic vision is one-person one-vote from river to sea. The two-state democratic vision is one-person one vote on either side of the green line.
I’m sorry but I really have to ask this. when you decided to comment on things do you ever comment on things that you know understand.
because so far you’ve shown little understanding of international law other than the views of Israeli propaganda and nothing about property law nor logic.
“In this case Israel would be the one paying compensation, either to the rightful owner or to the person who loses a home through imperfect title.”
This is a reasonable remedy. It differs from your language.
No it doesn’t differ from my language. It IS my language. I’m hoping that you are not so obtuse as to miss that “the person who loses a home through imperfect title” would in a “color blind” system most often be a Jewish Israeli since the majority of land in question was illegal confiscated by Israel and then leased to Jews.
If you actually read my posts, you would note that we are in more agreement than disagreement, though we use very different language to describe similar substance.
I’ve read your posts. I even try to understand them. You are a hypocrite. I doubt we agree on much since you have chosen to favor one group over another purely based on a sense of affinity rather than on right or wrong. I suspect that you think that we agree because I used your term “imperfect title” which you have only applied when speaking about Palestinian claims, whereas I used it in a “color blind” fashion.
And yes, words matter. Use of polemic conveys a disregard for law, specifically.
As usual, you really need to address that to yourself. I am discussing what an equitable, non-discriminatory law would require. You are advocating what you would like that law to decide in a way that favors Jews over Palestinians. You are the one using polemic. I’d suggest you do all your posting in front of a mirror and apply your proscriptions to yourself first and foremost.
The rights of the living are important. No color-blind court would disregard the rights of residents for the rights of former residents.
Everyone we are talking about is alive. I’m not talking about dead peoples’ rights. Palestinians are alive just as much as Jews are, in case you missed that. “Color blind” courts rule against present residents all the time when the present resident’s title is imperfect, or when the owner’s rights supersede a tenant’s rights. You are asking for special favors for Jewish Israelis, not for a “color-blind” decision.
On the question of sovereignty, the question of single-state versus two-state, you have not addressed the issue substantively, as much as your blocker North, supports you.
What the hell does “my blocker North” mean? Oh, never mind. I support equality for both groups. I think it is impossible, solely because of Israel’s actions over the last forty years, for an equitable two state solution to be found. Its probably impossible for even an unjust two state solution to be found. Therefore, since Israel does not want to withdraw and you support that decision with respect to the Israeli settlers, the best option then is if every person under the control of Israel should have the right to vote in elections there. That is what a democracy is. It does not eliminate voting rights for those who are governed by the state based solely on their ethnicity or religion. It is not an issue of what Jews want separate from what Palestinians want. It is what the majority of those people ruled by Israel want. And my suspicion is that either now or in the near future the majority of those people will want to live in equality in Israel. I would remind you that in the US we do not decide things only by what the majority of white people want, (I think we would have had many more Republican Presidents if that were the case) but on what the majority of all citizens want.
North,
You continue character assassination rather than addressing points.
He was addressing me, I believe, and my points. Trust me, Richard, it does get tiresome to answer your repetitions , but sometimes I’m in the mood regardless of the fact that I know its the equivalent of beating my head against the wall. I appreciate his kind words for me.
Your statements are advocacy for war and ethnic cleansing in the present.
How repulsive!
pjdude, please revise your statements to advocate for war and ethnic cleansing in the past , so that Witty can call them a “necessity.”
pjdude,
Short answer. No.
still hiding behind the same lies and propaganda as always. I do not wish war nor to ethnicaly cleanse I merely wish for those opressed to get their legal rights if that requires a war because criminals do not wish to face justice and the removing of people from other’s property than I am for it. You seem to think justice is doing what criminals want.
no it is their country. hell the british mandate recognized as such. it is not fascist though the state you worship is. and it is democratic. it gives the rightful people a vote in their countries government
actually a democratic vision is one of one citizen one vote. illegiatmate residents get to vote sole at the discresion of of the rightful resident of a territory. the palestinians not being the violent people like the zionist would gladly give that right to the ex Israelis
as usual you blame other for wanting war as your faith wages a war to completyely destroy every remenent of evidence of palestinians residence in palestine
So, to summarize the substance of my recommendation.
Sovereignty over West Bank and Gaza – Palestinian
Sovereignty over west of the green line – Israel
If the two parties wish to modify small portions to make the divisions more governable, or the proposal more likely to be ratified, so be it.
Title over ALL land – Compensation to perfect any imperfections of title. Disposession by any legal theory, of Jewish Israelis or of Palestinians would be an unnecessary cruelty, and injustice, a second wrong.
Residence – Anyone born in Israel gets to reside in Israel. Anyone born in Palestine gets to reside in Palestine. Immigration policy up to the legislation of each state. Anyone married or dependant child of a citizen of either, gets to reside. There should be provision for temporary residence permission for Palestinians in Israel, and for Israelis in Palestine.
General relationship – Good neighbor to good neighbor, evolution to genuine mutual respect, easy border crossing, possible evolution to EU or even US type federation.
I don’t see that any feature of those substantive recommendations are materially feasible to be modified.
Do you agree or disagree with the substance of the recommendations?
I attended a Norman Finkelstein lecture in South Hadley, MA at Mt Holyoke College a couple years ago, in which he was dialoging with a liberal Zionist professor who stated that she believed that the 67 borders were the appropriate borders of Israel/Palestine, which he asserted similarly at the lecture. She didn’t use language like “criminal” to describe Israeli policy, but language like “wrong” or “injustices” (referring to cases/incidents rather than generalization), to which Norman described her views as nazi-like.
I so wish that he (and many others) were much more sober and addressed substance over form, substance over emotion.
The differences between the Olmert and Abbas proposals were insignficant, bridgable. With different language spoken, they would have. Instead, the differences between Netanyahu and prevailing “majority” Palestinian opinion (its hard to know what is prevailing opinion) are large, a restoration of conflict.
Words are important. They are important to accomplish something of merit. And words also “succeed” at destroying the accomplishment of something of merit.
>> Words are important.
Yes, they are, aren’t they.
Richard Witty’s words:
>> Currently [ethnic cleansing of Palestinians is] not necessary.
>> I cannot consistently say that “ethnic cleansing is never necessary”.
>> If I was an adult in 1948, I probably would have supported whatever it took to create the state of Israel, and held my nose at actions that I could not possibly do myself.
Israel is palestine. so your saying al those palestinians who are denied the right to return have the right too? since when did you believe palestinians had rights?
No Israelis shouldn’t exist because Israel is a criminal enter prize. people of the jewish faith how ever should be free
Please please PLEASE stop pretending like you understand how formal logic works. It’s really quite embarrassing, and I’m actually not in the mood for schadenfreude.
Chaos do you mean me or witty?
He means Witty. Your punctuation is terrible, but your thinking is fine.
Witty, of course! Heh.
the settler-entity* is doomed
self-destructing
no surprise
good riddance too
with the world beffer off
more peaceful
*the entity, not its people