. . . Do you really think, if a 2-state solution is agreed on, that the Israeli military will do whatever it takes to move the 500,000 Israeli settlers/colonists from the West Bank back behind the green line, to the pre-1967 borders of Israel?
Let's not forget: the settler/colonists are people who murdered their own prime minister, Yitzhak Rabin, and who continue to boast about it. These are people who produced the mass killer, Dr. Baruch Goldstein. These are people who are armed and who do not hesitate to use violence.
In other words, would a genuine 2-state solution provoke a civil war? Would the Israeli army split? Would a well-trained and committed section break away? In Algeria in the early 1960s, the far right-wing OAS (Secret Army Organization), composed of French colonists and soldiers, split off, and waged a ferocious terrorist campaign in both Algeria and France itself. Is there any reason to believe the same thing would not happen in Israel?
Would the United Nations, or other foreign military forces, have to be called in? How long would such a civil war last?
And why do those of you who support the 2-state solution think it is self-evidently more practical, less utopian, then the 1-state solution?
Sorry to comment, not being a “pro Israel visitor”. The issues involved here include not only choosing the target of “getting there” (1SS, 2SS, other) but the mechanism for “getting there”. Let us consider the mechanism.
I don’t like the idea of the politics (and likely violence) of removal being impediments to peace-making. Peace-making has enough impediments, it doesn’t need these. Israel needs less impediments to peace-making, not more.
No. Removal of 550,000 settlers and demolishing of settlements and wall should be completed before peace-making even starts.
Fortunately for this point of view, the presence of settlers (and of settlements and of wall) in occupied territory is contrary to international law, so that the international community (“I/C” for short) can, if it so decides, exert pressure on Israel to remove settlers, etc. If it did exert such pressure, sufficiently to effect removal, there might indeed be civil war (and, far worse, “price-tag” pogroms against Palestinians by thuggish settlers if not also by thuggish soldiers and thuggish police), but if the government of Israel cuts off electricity and water and in-bound transport from the settlements, under army supervision (the army possibly first re-assigning its pro-settlement soldiers), the period of “siege” of settlers resisting a legitimate government order to repatriate behind Israel’s “green line” should not take too long.
However — a big however — the Israeli government must conclude that the external pressure exerted or to be exerted by the “I/C” is sufficient (and likely to last long enough) to make ending the settlement project sufficiently “in Israel’s interest” to be worth doing in spite of the anticipated fierce resistance of the settlers and their friends (in Israel, in Israel’s army, in OPTs, in USA).
So far the I/C has shown no signs of overcoming its inertia (and USA’s heavy hand) to do any such thing. If it did overcome all obstacles and create the “sufficient pressure”, however, it is possible that it would demand more of Israel than merely ending post-1967 settlements. The issue of Palestinian “return” comes to mind. The issue of equitable water-sharing comes to mind. The issue of a wide corridor from Gaza to the West Bank, un-hindered, comes to mind (as well as the issue of a narrow corridor from Israel to the Western Wall). Issues of reparations by Israel to Lebanon, to Gaza, to the refugees of 1948, perhaps to the UNRWA for 63+ years of payments to refugees who should have been allowed to return in 1948 — all come to mind.
I think that ruminations about “mechanism” will concentrate friends and foes of Israel, alike, on a world rife with injustice in which those who hold power relinquish it, if at all, with extreme reluctance, and hold on to it, as a rule, in a most thoroughly bloodthirsty and immoral manner.
Pabelmont, you are a realist. Thus you see that all you say will never be accepted by the Jewish Israelis or their American enablers. The thing then, is to imagine what will happen “down the line” since we all know what you suggest will never happen?
You ask the questions as if you already know and distrust the answers you’ll get.
Regardless, I will answer them. I’m sure I don’t have to say that these are my own answers and opinions. I speak for no one else.
Do I think the military will remove the settlers in the event of a negotiated 2-state solution? I think a negotiated solution will involve some of the larger settlements remaining part of Israel. I think the rest of the settlers will be removed through a combination of mild force and voluntary withdrawal as per Yamit in 1982. link to en.wikipedia.org
“In other words, would a genuine 2-state solution provoke a civil war?”
I do not believe there is any appetite for a civil war. However extreme the settlers are they will not unite in significant numbers to fight the army. However many soldiers are sympathetic to the cause of the settlers, they will not turn on the government. The will of the majority is to close the settlements and withdraw to 67 borders. There will be no civil war.
Based on your follow-up questions, it’s clear you don’t agree, but based on my answer to your first, the rest of your questions are moot.
I know that the perception of Israel around the world is significantly different from the one we have in Israel. Nevertheless, I think your questions, Baruch Goldstein and the other nutters notwithstanding, show that you have never had this discussion with an Israeli before. They show you to be supremely out of touch with the way Israeli society works. Here we argue over almost everything. Everyone is on one side or the other. Likud or Labour. Racist or not racist. War or no war. Religious or secular. Ashkenaz or Sephard. Schnitzel or schwarma. The only thing we don’t fight about is the army, because that’s our children and parents don’t fight over the children even if they don’t agree on anything else.
I’m sure I’ve written lots here for people to isolate and ridicule. Knock yourselves out.
GuiltyFeat: I appreciate your response. I don’t know enough about the violent settler/colonists to estimate their numbers. But I do know that even a minority, if well organized and with access to enough modern weapons, could tear Israel apart — to say nothing of the much increased “price tags” killings they would commit against unarmed, innocent Palestinians. The French/Algerian colon OAS killings and bombings blocked a peace settlement for years, and nearly toppled de Gaulle’s government.
Sorry, James, but again, it’s clear you’ve never spoken to an Israeli, either a settler or any other about this. The settlers will not go to war with Israel. It’s not a matter of numbers (although the settlers capable of violence are clearly in the minority when faced with the rest of the settlers and the whole of the State of Israel). They will not organize themselves together to fire weapons on other Israelis.
I’m not saying this out of pride or any other kind of foolishness and I know that Rabin was killed by a deranged lunatic called Yigal Amir and anything else you want to throw at me. I’m still telling you that it will never happen. Of course this is my opinion and nothing more, but I do not think you will find anyone who has spent time with any Israelis on either side of the political spectrum who would support your suggestion of a civil war.
And this is all in spite of the fact that the wing of Israeli politics represented by Avigdor Lieberman has promised violence if their demands aren’t satisfied?
GF so in your opinion these sorts of stories are not a sign of things to come? You are ever the optimist ;)
link to haaretz.com
link to haaretz.com
link to jpost.com
link to mondoweiss.net
“but I do not think you will find anyone who has spent time with any Israelis on either side of the political spectrum who would support your suggestion of a civil war.”
Nah, they’ll just bug out (return to England, France, the US or wherever) and leave all the unfortunates in Israel with no alternative and those afflicted by religious insanity to fight it out.
You’ve got no worries, Guilty Feat, it’s a quick plane ride back to Merry Olde!
What I’m trying to say (in my own inimitably endearing fashion) is that you are hardly a reliable correspondent Guilty. You look at it from the point of view of someone who can just say “Feats, Do your stuff” and skeddadle. Of course you see nothing worth fighting over.
Perhaps the Diaspora, fed up with being manipulated, will make war on your farkukte state.
mikeo, thank you for linking to Settler rabbi says, ‘It will probably come down to a war between Jews’. it saved me from a search.
information in that post directly refutes this notion:
The settlers will not go to war with Israel. It’s not a matter of numbers…… They will not organize themselves together to fire weapons on other Israelis.
not according to rabbi wolpe, who is an extremely influential rabbi in israel.
that last quote is a threat of insubordination and it is supported in the link w/a link to Arutz Sheva who has a video of this speech.
i would also like to point out this shitstorm took place in israel, massively covered in the press there (while completely blacked out of US media) 6 days before the itmar massacre which understandably took it off the headlines.
GF
The settlers may not fight the IDF, but will they increase their price tag attacks on innocent Palestinians? Could this lead to a fightback by Palestinians? What no one seems to consider is could these settlers force the IDF to intervene to protect them if the Palestinians are ever in a position where they feel safe enough to fight back the next time that the price taggers come into their village, or start burning and uprooting their trees.
lol
That’s what I call unabashed, in-your-face, chutzpah.
[Begin sarcasm]
Yes, James, why haven’t you spoken to any Israelis or Israeli colonists?
And why haven’t you consulted GuiltyFeat before releasing your statement? He already has one prepared for you, peppered with spin, Hasbara and lies.
Shame on you, James. You should have known better.
” it’s a quick plane ride back to Merry Olde!”
Assuming his British passport hasn’t been compromised by Mossad.
“GF so in your opinion these sorts of stories are not a sign of things to come? You are ever the optimist ;)”
No. I don’t think these stories are a sign of things to come. I think they are a sign of things that are already here but that are made to appear more significant than they truly are by their appearance in a news article.
You know those nutters who picket the funerals of US soldiers killed in Iraq with their “God Hates You” placards. That’s who is being written about here. Wolpo (who I had never heard of before reading your links despite the numbers of people on this board desperate to let me know what an influential Rabbi he is whatever the fug that means) seems to be a lunatic. His words are reported in the press in order to identify him as a lunatic. He is politically insignificant.
It’s certainly depressing, it’s undeniably newsworthy (where news is truthfully defined as the crap that fits best between the ads) but it’s not representative.
I understand why it suits your narrative to think it is, but again, I suggest that you talk to more mainstream Israelis before appearing here and telling everyone what we all think.
“The French/Algerian colon OAS killings and bombings…”
They weren’t Jewish, were they? It’s anti-Israel to imply that Jews might engage in a violence!
Jewish Algerians joined the OAS movement.
Not only did Israel secretly support the OAS, some of the fiercest supporters of the OAS in Algeria were the Jews there.
james, here is a video by jpost that gives perspective. i rec.
James North,
Uri Avnery wrote the following article entitled “The Settler State”.
Contrary to GuiltyFeat’s spin and lies, Uri Avnery explains that the colonists have already reached top government posts, a fact that — in my view — renders all the speculation surrounding a Jewish civil war or the removal of the colonies rather moot. Consider the implications of this:
[.]
[.]
Full article
“The only thing we don’t fight about is the army, because that’s our children and parents don’t fight over the children even if they don’t agree on anything else.”
This is vomit-making. These “children” may be your offspring, but they are adults; adults who regularly go and kill other people’s offspring who are actually children. Maybe if you as a society stopped treating these killers like innocent infants, and started treating them as adults responsible for their actions, maybe the evil they do in your name wouldn’t be as great.
nice accountability. thank you Woody. much needed accountability.
GuiltyFeat,
I am glad that you have added you opinions to this thread. I would like to comment in a way which does ‘isolate’ one aspect of what you have written, namely the notion of “speaking to an Israeli” and “Here we argue over almost everything. Everyone is on one side or the other. Likud or Labour. Racist or not racist. War or no war. Religious or secular. Ashkenaz or Sephard. Schnitzel or schwarma. “. It seems that you are speaking of Jewish Israelis. Yet 20% of Israelis are not Jewish in any sense of the word but are Arab and Chistian or Muslim or secular. There are plenty of examples of violence even to point of killing committed by Israelis against Israelis who are Arabs.
I am sure you are aware of this, but your (seeming) automatic equation of Israeli with Jewish Israeli seems to be a blind spot which might affect your predictions about what “Israelis” might be willing to do to each other.
What do you think?
Sincerely,
Jonathan House, MD
“I am sure you are aware of this, but your (seeming) automatic equation of Israeli with Jewish Israeli…”
C’mon, Dr. House, if you take away the Israel, all you’ve got left is the Jewish religion as a personal faith. And what good has that ever done? Does it keep the bullies from kicking sand in your face at the beach? Does it keep people from sucker-punching you outside of movies?
MOOSER- “…if you take away the Israel, all you’ve got left is the Jewish religion as a personal faith.”
You have cut to the heart of the matter. Zionism isn’t about preserving the Judaic religion, or traditional Jewish customs, or even the well being of individual Jews. It is all about maintaining the “Jewish people” as a distinct group apart. That is, as an exclusivist power-seeking collective. For Judaism to become simply a religion involving personal faith would be an “existential threat” to their exclusivist ideology. Israel as a state of all of its citizens? God forbid!
“That is, as an exclusivist power-seeking collective.”
But how else will God show us that He loves the Jews, and we are His chosen people? By giving us power, land and money! Isn’t that the central idea of Judaism?
You know, like the Koreans are His Chosun people.
omg
You have no idea what you are talking about.
Judaism itself is more than enough to contain Jewish people as a distinct group – to a certain degree.
As of Zionism – it isn’t about preserving the Judaic religion, or traditional Jewish customs, or even the well being of individual Jews. Neither it is about maintaining the “Jewish people” – Jews maintain themselves for few last thousand years, much longer than Zionism exist.
So what Zionism is after?
Zionism (Hebrew: ציונות, Tsiyonut) is a Jewish political movement that, in its broadest sense, has supported the self-determination of the Jewish people in a sovereign Jewish national homeland.
Judaism could not possibly became “simply a religion involving personal faith”
You really just have no idea.
“But how else will God show us that He loves the Jews, and we are His chosen people?”
Alas, according to your previous arguments, God has got fed up and unchosen the Jews.
“You know, like the Koreans are His Chosun people.”
You are going to have to work hard to beat that one.
LIGHTBRINGER- It is hard to know where to begin. You appear confused, yet are difficult to categorize.
“As of Zionism – it isn’t about preserving the Judaic religion, or traditional Jewish customs, or even the well being of individual Jews.”
Hey, I thought I said that!
“Neither it is about maintaining the “Jewish people”…. “Zionism (Hebrew: ציונות, Tsiyonut) is a Jewish political movement that, in its broadest sense, has supported the self-determination of the Jewish people in a sovereign Jewish national homeland.”
Lets see if I understand you. Zionism isn’t about maintaining the “Jewish people,” its all about supporting the “Jewish people” in a sovereign Jewish national homeland? “Maintaining” and “supporting” the “Jewish people” being qualitatively different? Unlike the Goyim, Jews can’t experience self-determination unless they redeem the land from the Goyim through ethnic cleansing? No room for the Palestinians in the mythical Land of Israel?
“Judaism could not possibly became “simply a religion involving personal faith”
Jeez, I would love to see you expand on this. I’ll wait until then before I provide the quotes about Zionism being an attempt to return to classical Judaism (albeit in secular form), thereby maintaining the exclusivist integrity of the “Jewish people.”
“Judaism itself is more than enough to contain Jewish people as a distinct group – to a certain degree”
Hummm…..are Episcopalians a ‘distinct group’? Can we have our own country?
What about Baptist?…are they a distinct group? Where is their true homeland?
We better get busy staking claims and dividing up the land.
I demand my own country! I demand my self determination as a distinct group!
Maybe if I create enough fuss the UN will give me Jamaica or the Virgin Islands.
BTW, the National Geographic says the nethanderals were the original inhabitants of Palestine Israel….seriously ….they just discovered their skulls down under all the other layers they dug up. And really interesting is that they say there are some humans today still closely related to the nethanderals which can be ascertained by skull measurements.
“Maybe if I create enough fuss the UN will give me Jamaica or the Virgin Islands.”
That’s what I asked for, but all they offered me were the Canary Islands. What would I want with a bunch of canaries?
Yep, the Koreans figured this out & are playing copycat, with a government-issued copy of the Talmud now being well-thumbed in every home. I figure it must be a really condensed, sort of Reader’s Digest version. Probably doesn’t include animal soul distinctions either.
Zionism isn’t about maintaining the “Jewish people,” its all about supporting the “Jewish people” in a sovereign Jewish national homeland? “Maintaining” and “supporting” the “Jewish people” being qualitatively different?
Yes.
Maintaining Jewish people elsewhere and supporting Jewish state is different.
“Judaism could not possibly became “simply a religion involving personal faith”
Jeez, I would love to see you expand on this. I’ll wait until then before I provide the quotes about Zionism being an attempt to return to classical Judaism (albeit in secular form), thereby maintaining the exclusivist integrity of the “Jewish people.”
You see,
Should have you been familiar with Judaism my statement would’ve been understandable, but since you are not, I won’t be able to properly explain it within limitation of this topic – the issue is just too big.
p.s. Should one day Judaism became “simply a religion involving personal faith” next day there will be no Jews.
Mooser, take it away with Lightbringer. We’re waiting. [He doesn't know who he's taken on. Here's a hint, Lightbringer: Mooser is Jewish.]
As for you, Lightbringer, read this
LIGHTBRINGER- I am trying to understand you, but it is difficult. You appear to be saying that, for you at least, the secular concept of the Jewish people as an exclusivist, collectivist entity is qualitatively different from the religious concept of the Jewish people as a divine metaphysical entity. That even though operationally the results may be the same, at the metaphysical level the two are different and can only be grasped intuitively and on faith? Would I be correct in assuming that you are a religious Jew? One who follows the more mystical versions of Judaism? In any event, I promised you some quotes. Here are two.
“It seems that Israel and Zionism are a throw-back to the role of classical Judaism- writ large, on a global scale, and under more dangerous circumstances.” (Israel Shahak)
“Yet Zionism’s dynamic was drawn from the most tribal and particularistic stratum of Judaism, and its destiny became the restoration of tribalism in the guise of a modern, highly militarized and aggressive state.” (Joel Kovel)
Finally, “p.s. Should one day Judaism became “simply a religion involving personal faith” next day there will be no Jews.” Where would they have gone? What should believers in the Judaic religion call themselves? Or have you, Lightbringer, arrogated unto yourself the right to excommunicate all of those Jews who disagree with you?
I’m not religious Jew. To be more precise I’m as far from being religious as from being atheistic.
As of quotes – people are speaking of matters way beyond their comprehension. Don’t take them too seriously.
You know, Orthodox community still have no opinion regarding WWII and Holocaust.
Care to know why? Because very little time have passed.
Should one day Judaism became “simply a religion involving personal faith” next day there will be no Jews.
They would simply stop being Jews, that’s it.
Judaism has an ultimate goal, along with few intermediate ones.
Should it fail – Jews will assimilate and disappear completely within 2-3 generations like Romans, Greeks, Babylonians or other numerous tribes.
Judaism has an ultimate goal,
in 10 words or less, what is it? lol, use a hundred i don’t care.
In two words:
Or leGoyim (או לגויים)
Light to the Nations
Lightbringer, religious? No. Fanatic, though? Yes.
how do you think that is applies to israel? at all?
State of Israel exists for a tiny fraction of entire Jewish history.
Do you really think that this parch of desert have any importance?
RoHa, dude, I know you know that the Canary Islands is actually named that way for the dogs (who were actually seals), not the canaries, right?
Er, the Romans are called Italians and the Greeks are still called Greeks.
Yes, and canaries are native to the islands. But why spoil the joke?
for someone whose name suggest he is a bringer of light you sure do make things confusing. you said Judaism has an ultimate goal. i ask you what that was and you said “Light to the Nations”. i ask you how this applies to israel, meaning how the goal of judaism applies to israel. and you answer by telling me israel has existed for a tiny fraction of entire jewish history? and you asked me
Do you really think that this parch of desert have any importance?
maybe it is you speaking of matters way beyond your comprehension.
Maybe.
What I was trying to say is that State of Israel is too small and insignificant compared to this planetary-scale mission.
It’s most important events so far have had happened 1500-2500 years ago.
The rest is up to the nations.
well then what exactly are you saying here:
how is the goal of judaism served by israel being one of the least liked counties in the world? how does israel’s actions hurt the goals of judaism?
State of Israel . . . It’s most important events so far have had happened 1500-2500 years ago.
The State of Israel did not exist 1500-2500 years ago and no amount of your saying it’s so will change that. It is 60 years ago. Period.
What I was trying to say is that State of Israel is too small and insignificant compared to this planetary-scale mission.
do you mean this is why it needs to expand? you mean this ‘mission’ of being a light unto nations? it’s not the size that matters it is the light. i tiny light can make a huge difference. like the northern star. israel is an apartheid state, it’s darkness not light.
Again – Israel is of no importance and have nothing to do with the mission.
Israel’s action could in no way hurt these goals.
“It’s” was actually related to the mission, not state.
Did I ever said Israel needs to expand?
And again – Israel have nothing to do with the mission.
Israel is of no importance and have nothing to do with the mission.
Israel’s action could in no way hurt these goals.
“Israel’s action could in no way hurt these goals?” Are you nuts? Go sell stupid someplace else.
If my mission in life were to be the world’s greatest philanthropist, and I ran companies that impoverished entire communities, denuded their resources, jailed their citizens, overworked and cheated my employees, and used my money to close down the schools and social services offices in the communities, my so-called mission would be a gross and obscene vanity divorced from the reality of my actions.
Let me give you a 411. Or leGoyim (או לגויים) The Goyim don’t need your brand of light. Your presumptuousness is repellent. The problem with Israel is that it doesn’t understand responsibility and consequences.
How do Zionism’s goals differ, if at all, from Israel’s action? And, from Israel’s goals? Please define the planetary mission you mention. What is the source of said mission? What would be evidence said mission was accomplished, and can you name a few steps towards the accomplishment?
Citizen
You really should read my original post.
“Judaism has an ultimate goal, along with few intermediate ones.”
Judaism has nothing to do with Zionism.
The Goyimm already using our brand of light for about 2000 years.
And State of Israel has nothing to do with it whatsoever.
the state of israel has nothing to do with the goal of judaism?
that makes sense.
I see, oh Light Bringer, so the Goyhim, using your brand of light, have brought forth Auschwitz, and all the pogroms calanderized by typical Jewish history books? You know, the ones that attribute everything that ever happened to the Jews to innate Goy evil? Nice to know. I see how they’ve been enlightened by you and yours. Doesn’t the state of Israel have something to do with this if nothing else because of how the Nazis and Zionists work together on The Transfer Agreement? Are you also claming that the nuclear military state of Israel has not been allowed to exist because that state never uses the Shoah to justify its existence? Fancy that. Next thing we know you will be claiming that Israeli leaders never claim they are insuring that the Shoah will never happen again. And the same respecting the USA’s fifth column, AIPAC & fellow travelers. Good luck with your planetary vision of things to come and your planetary vision of the light you are shedding for all of us.
Citizen
So many letters, yet so little sense…
You really does not seem to grasp it – The Shoa, Nazis, State of Israel – these are all minuscule matters, to be forgotten within next few hundred years.
Consider following – about one half of entire Earth’s population worship Jewish god and follow almost the same principles of humanity based on Jewish holy scriptures.
“Consider following – about one half of entire Earth’s population worship Jewish god”
A God based on the Jewish God, but in the case of Christianity heavily modified by Greek thought into a tripartite entity.
“and follow almost the same principles of humanity based on Jewish holy scriptures.”
Western principles of humanity were derived from Stoic and Aristotelian ethics. The Christian church found that the Scriptures were a totally inadequate base for ethics.
As far as the Jewish holy scriptures are concerned, I agree with Thomas Paine.
“Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous
debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the
unrelenting vindictivness, with which more than half the Bible
is filled, it would be, more consistent that we called it the
word of a demon, than the word of god. It is a history of
wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind.”
Thomas Paine : AGE OF REASON.
Guilty Feat, I feel you are speaking truth about your view of Israel, as an insider. Americans don’t fight about their army either, although it’s now a professional army since we don’t currently have conscription. Mostly, the volunteers are a combination of young citizens looking for a job other than at McDonald’s, so to say, and a portion of them are from “military families,” that is, from those families that have been the most consistent over the decades producing young cannonfodder for idealistic reasons. These are of course gentile families, white gentile families, many rural or at least suburban. So, given that, what do you have to say to us regarding your main concerns?
I wouldn’t be too sure about the settlers not becoming violent against Israelis as they are against Palestines.
I have been talking to a Jewish fellow who visits relatives in Israel. He is the non zionist or zionist lite type but most of his relatives are living in settlements and he describes them as religious fanatics who really believe God commanded them to settle all of Palestine as the Greater Israel and all the other myths surrounding zionism.
I would not underestimate the insanity of the religiously deranged.
Add to that the crazy Russian Jews of the fascist variety now in positions of influence in Israel and you could have the perfect storm for some kind of civil war.
As small as Israel is it wouldn’t take many or much to set off a firestorm of conflict.
I wouldn’t be too sure about the settlers not becoming violent against Israelis
check out kate’s list re the attack on the reform synagogue in israel. these people are nuts.
American,
I would not underestimate the insanity of the religiously deranged.
Add to that the crazy Russian Jews of the fascist variety now in positions of influence in Israel and you could have the perfect storm for some kind of civil war.
Yeah, you can see the writing on that wall from here. I guess when we start hearing about settlers asking for dough from the Diapora for weapons, we’ll know it’s close.
You’re seeing the amygdala, the Lizard Brain in action.
I think we should distinguish between a 2ss which embodied some genuine fairness to the Palestinians and one that embodied their continuing, ruthless and relentless subjection. The first of these is little better than a fantasy for the reasons that you give, James – real concessions would split Israeli society, quite likely violently, and would end the career, even perhaps the life, of an ultra-Rabin style leader who even let it cross his mind. The 2ss as canvassed is much more like the second and indeed seems to be take ever more ruthless terms as Israeli negotiators work on it – or that seems to be the conclusion that most people draw from the Palestine Cables. This, the classic 2ss, could perhaps be coaxed into forms that Israel would accept because they felt sure that it would keep the Palestinians under their thumb. It’s possible that this grandly unfair arrangement would then get a majority in a Palestinian referendum on the ‘any port in a storm’ principle. But I think that everyone would know that it could not last and that the Palestinian Kingdom (let me use a fantasy term) could not be genuinely independent or sovereign in any serious respect – not in military or foreign, not in economic, not in educational or even in religious policies. By 2050 its people, seriously outnumbering the Israelis but crammed by them into a small and barren area, would feel as deprived and insulted as they do now.
So I would say that the 2ss is either unrealistic to begin or impossible to maintain.
I think the rise of an OAS style organization is not only inevitable, I think it already exists to a certain extent, though it lies dormant at the moment.
That said, I’d change the terms of your question. Israel need not relocate half a million residents, but a much smaller number, and in return exchange land with the Palestinian state. The devil of course, is in the details.
As for why a 2ss is more realistic? If by realistic you mean that it has a greater chance of ending violent conflict, allowing the creation of a fully Palestinian state, and resolving (in some way) the plight of Palestinian refugees still living in camps, then I’d say it has a greater chance of success. This falls short of the maximum demands on the Palestinian side, including some demands that I feel are morally correct. But in the interests of ending the bloodshed and giving relief to the largest number of people in the shortest amount of time, I think a 2ss is the better option.
“As for why a 2ss is more realistic? If by realistic you mean that it has a greater chance of ending violent conflict, allowing the creation of a fully Palestinian state…”
Zionists have talked about a 2 state solutions for more than 60 years. If Israel wanted a two state solution it would have happened a long time ago. It doesn’t matter whether it was Ben Gurion, Eshkol, Meir, Begin, Rabin, Sharon, or Netanyahu. They all wanted to or engaged in colonization of the West Bank.
“Israel need not relocate half a million residents, but a much smaller number, and in return exchange land with the Palestinian state. The devil of course, is in the details.”
Yes, the devils in the details. The swap sounds all fine and dandy but perhaps the Palestinians will object to Israel taking all of the aquifers in the OPT’s and exchanging them for desert land in the Negev. Do you really believe Israel is going to give back any water or any interesting natural resources?
Light
“Zionists have talked about a 2 state solutions for more than 60 years. If Israel wanted a two state solution it would have happened a long time ago. It doesn’t matter whether it was Ben Gurion, Eshkol, Meir, Begin, Rabin, Sharon, or Netanyahu. They all wanted to or engaged in colonization of the West Bank.”
There were two leaders who actually tried to get 2s solution.
First was Rabin – all he got was First Intifada and few bullets.
Second was Barak – he only got Second Intifada, no bullets.
Obviously, it’s much easier to put entire blame on Jews – it’s convenient, historically-approved and 100% secure.
A) Actually, what Rabin got was assassinated by his own people and replaced by those who were more in tune with Israel’s social character than he proved to be. Sadly.
B) Light made a specific list of seven individuals, by name, which he specifically attributed for either neglecting or destroying the peace process in their own ways. Is the entirety of Judaism composed of merely seven Israeli prime ministers?
Chaos4700
A) Rabin was assassinated AFTER the failure of Oslo peace process.
B) The list Light made is of no interest because it is not based on historic reality.
So, how exactly do you continue to claim that you are a leftist? What you propose has been proposed by Tzipi Livni and Ehud Olmert.
You advocate for a Jewish-only state. The only method to achieve that is through the redrawing of the borders so that Israel’s 20% minority become citizens of a Palestinian state. Under such a plan, Palestinians in Israel will be forced to change their citizenship and by extension limit their territorial access.
In addition, instead of returning land stolen by colonies to the Palestinians, yours and Livni’s plan pretends to give Palestinians more land, when in fact Israel keeps the colonies and the water resources on which they sit while Palestinians in Israel will have to give up their citizenship and be annexed by a state that will inevitably have to purchase its water from Israel. This, of course, does not start to address the right of return for refugees.
But, that ‘solution’ is a win-win for Israel. It rids itself of the Palestinian minority, while keeping the colonies and the natural resources. Meanwhile, it’s a lose-lose for the Palestinians as their movement will be restricted and the colonies will divide up their land.
Am I the only one who finds it disgusting that a person who immigrated from the US, and later returned to the US, is playing with indigenous people’s lives as though they were pieces on a chessboard?
But, “disgusting” is too harsh for American sensibilities, especially Jewish American sensibilities. Had the subject matter involved African Americans or Native Americans, then the words “racist” and “sick” would have been flying left and right. Alas, it is normative for American Jews to advance such appalling ideas with regard to Palestinian rights, so much so that it doesn’t bother many anymore. It is no different than the racism that swept the US after 9/11, peddled in large part by Zionist Jewish organizations. That hate gained momentum and acceptance. Had the targeted victims been Jews or African-Americans, condemnation would have been swift and unrelenting.
Even within the so-called “liberal” Jewish American community, such views are not only tolerated, but encouraged. People who claim to be enlightened liberals do not appear to comprehend the audacity of a foreigner dictating to the indigenous people their destiny, merely by virtue of that foreigner being born a Jew.
“Alas, it is normative for American Jews to advance such appalling ideas with regard to Palestinian rights, so much so that it doesn’t bother many anymore.”
Exactly right. In my experience, the more Zionist an American Jew is, the more they are blind to their own screaming racism against Arabs and Palestinians in particular.
James:
First, make sure your assumptions are correct. In a two-state solution, most of the settlers will stay where they are, in settlement blocs that will be swapped. And I do think the military will have the will to remove the rest.
“the settler/colonists are people who murdered their own prime minister, Yitzhak Rabin, and who continue to boast about it.”
That is a vast distortion of the truth. The wing of the settlement movement that supported Rabin’s assassination is a tiny fraction of the whole. Most settlers were outraged by what happened.
“In other words, would a genuine 2-state solution provoke a civil war?”
No, in my opinion, despite the extremists who claim this is what would happen. The vast majority of Israelis would oppose such a thing.
“And why do those of you who support the 2-state solution think it is self-evidently more practical, less utopian, then the 1-state solution?”
There are many reasons. There are two peoples who have been at each other’s throats for a century. Both want autonomy for themselves, and that can only be achieved in a nation-state. The Jews want and I believe self-evidently deserve, a state. The Palestinians want a state. Past history suggests the two-state solution is the most reasonable one under the circumstances. Yugoslavia collapsed into civil war. Lebanon disintegrated in civil war. How many African countries deteriorated on ethnic lines? The truth of the matter is that the one-state solution is no less arbitrary and paternalistic than one-state solutions imposed by Western imperial powers all over the world. Nation-states do not work when large portions of the population see the government as illegitimate or sectarian. That would almost certainly happen in a “one-state solution.”
hophmi: I didn’t realize that you were a Palestinian negotiator, ready to decide in advance what Palestinians will accept.
What if the Palestinian people decide they want their country to reach right up to the green line? They feel they already made concessions in the 1988 PLO declaration recognizing Israel, so why should they give away more of their land to settler/colonists, every single one of whom knew that moving into Palestine was a violation of international law?
By all rights the Palestinians could insist that their state go right up to the UN partition plan lines. Hophmi is predicating the nothing that settlements will persist in any “solution” because, quite literally, Israel will use overwhelming military force to hang on to the land it stole. Presumably, even against international peacekeeping forces, if necessary.
“Hophmi is predicating the nothing that settlements will persist in any “solution” because, quite literally, Israel will use overwhelming military force to hang on to the land it stole.”
I’m predicating on the fact that it’s been an assumption of peacemakers since at least 2000, and reasonable under the circumstances.
Bush was a “peacemaker?” What happened to both Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat, thanks to Israeli society, government and/or military? Rabin was assassinated and replaced by hard-liners who sabotaged the foundation he laid, while Arafat spent the last years of his life surrounded by IDF tanks and soldiers.
Name one convention of the Oslo Accords that Israel has enforced without making exceptions when it suits Israeli expansionism and terrorism against Palestinian civilians. Just one.
“I didn’t realize that you were a Palestinian negotiator, ready to decide in advance what Palestinians will accept.”
You can feel free to peruse the positions of Palestinian negotiators, readily available through Al-Jazeera and others.
“What if the Palestinian people decide they want their country to reach right up to the green line? ”
What if the Palestinian people decide they want their country to reach to the Mediterranean? What if the Israelis decide they want their country to reach the Jordan permanently? That’s why it’s called compromise.
“They feel they already made concessions in the 1988 PLO declaration recognizing Israel, so why should they give away more of their land to settler/colonists, every single one of whom knew that moving into Palestine was a violation of international law?”
Really? Every single person who moved into the territories knew they were violating international law when they moved there?
I don’t think the international law against transferring populations into occupied territory is one that can be enforced against every individual citizen, and frankly, I think you damn well know that. I also think you damn well know that there are many Palestinian negotiators who would and have discussed land swaps.
Every one of these questions has another dimension to it. That you fail utterly to understand that dimension, or engage in it in any meaningful way, makes your question a joke.
I answered in good faith. You retort in bad faith.
Proposing that we legitimize Israel crimes against international law as part of a “compromise?” That’s not good faith, hophmi, that’s an outright rejection of everything we built when we rejected, as a global society, colonialism and taking land from others at gunpoint at the end of WWII. You know, the same sort of protections that are meant to prevent genocides too? Like the Holocaust? Not a believer of “Never Again,” are you?
I agree that land swaps are inevitable, and the larger settlements will stay. The alternative sadly is that there will simply never be a Palestinian state, and that means that the conflict will never end. A free Palestine may be small, but the compromise would give it enormous international good will. If everyone who supported a Palestinian state visited it, and bought its goods, and supported it internationally then it could be so successful that it could literally punch above its size. We are all Palestinians, and we will all be part of a free Palestine. We should all sign up to make a free Palestine part of our lives after freedom, as it is so much part of our lives now.
I’ll support anything that a democratic Palestinian government agrees to, but Israeli violence against the Palestinians won’t stop. How often has Lebanese sovereignty alone prevented invasion and occupation by Israel? It’s almost as regular for Israel now as the Winter Olympics is for the world.
Reward Israelis with appeasement and they’ll just be back for more in a few years. England learned that lesson under Chamberlain when faced with a similar threat they thought they could contain by “sacrificing pawns.”
At the very least, hophmi doesn’t seem to care about the dilution of legal safeguards for basic human rights and sovereign states set up after the horror of WW2 by the world community. Or, he apparently is willingly to ignore those safeguards when it comes to maintaining and fulfilling the Israeli regime’s ambitions. An outstanding similar mentality regarding the American regime’s ambitions is Dick Chaney.
The United Nations replaced the failed League Of Nations. What will replace the United Nations? What happens when such an entity
is ignored? Consider why the League failed:
Weak – the League’s ‘powers’ were little more than going ‘tut-tut’. Sanctions did not work. It had no army.
America – the strongest nation in the world never joined. Britain and France were not strong enough to impose peace on their own.
Structure – the League’s organisation was muddled, so it took ages to do anything. Members couldn’t agree – but decisions had to be unanimous. This paralysed the League.
Depression – the world-wide Depression made countries try to get more land and power. They were worried about themselves, not about world peace.
Unsuccessful – the more the League failed, the less people trusted it. In the end, everybody just ignored it.
Members – the League’s main members let it down. Italy and Japan defied and left the League. France and Britain betrayed it.
Big bullies – in the 1920s, the League had been quite successful with small, weak countries. In the 1930s, powerful countries like Germany, Italy and Japan defied the League. They were too strong for the League to stop them.
So what’s the prospects for the United Nations? There are loud voices in the US today urging the US to kick the UN out of NYC, to quit funding it, or give it at most a token donation, to ignore the UN as in, “Since when does the US take orders from the UN?
That’s unAmerican! We’re a sovereign country!”
The UN has a Security Council, with a handful of continuous members with veto power. Rice’s recent veto regarding the Israeli settlements issue illustrated how effectively one of the big winners of WW2 can be within the UN’s framework.
Some say the membership criteria, make-up and functions of the UN Sec Council should be revised; that a more equitable and contemporary council replace the current one.
The thing to remember is that someone who is Pro-Israeli is first and foremost a Colonialist. In Colonialism Studies you learn that there are 2 types of Colonialism.
The most common form is Exploitation Colonialism: Setting up Economic systems in the colony to extract the native populations resources for the Colonialist state. (Examples would be the British East India Company and Belgium’s “Congo Free State” which extracted rubber and minerals and is the setting for the book “Heart of Darkness” by Joesph Conrad) Plantation colonies and the slave trade in America were also a form of exploitation colonialism.
The second form is known as Settler Colonialism: The migration of large numbers of Colonialists into the native land in order to supplant the native populations. (Examples in history would be Rhodesia, French Algeria, Northern Ireland and of course the biggest the settling of North America).
I think that the State of Israel is probably one of the final experiments in Settler Colonialism and anyone who is Pro-Israel is naturally a colonist since the state of Israel as a “Jewish and Democratic state” requires the removal of the native population and its replacement with settlers.
What people need to remember is that the father of Zionism, Theodor Herzl grew up in Europe during the golden age of European Colonialism during a time when most of the political leaders in Britain, France, Germany under Bismarck where all advocating the importance of Colonialism. Herzl’s book Der Judenstaat is a call to arms for Colonialism as a reaction to Anti Semitism.
So back to the question in this article, anyone who is Pro-Israeli would never be in favor of removing the settlers in the West Bank. I cannot think of one single case in the history of Colonialism where white settlers voluntarily chose to remove themselves without the native populations forcing them to.
“The thing to remember is that someone who is Pro-Israeli is first and foremost a Colonialist.”
Thank you, a hundred times!
“I cannot think of one single case in the history of Colonialism where white settlers voluntarily chose…”
Wait a minute! Now you are comparing Jews to white people. And…. say, wait a minute, I gotta go re-think a bit.
“Wait a minute! Now you are comparing Jews to white people.”
Yes. I used the words “white people” in the context of Colonialism and more specifically the history of European Colonialism, including the settling of Jewish Europeans and Jewish Russians in Israel as well as the settling of British Europeans in Rhodesia or French Europeans in Algeria.
Regardless of any petty tribal/ethnic differences British or French or Jewish Europeans it is still a case of white settlers settling on lands of indigenous peoples. In that regard Colonialism was/is a Pan European project conducted by many nationalities and many religious affiliations (whether Protestants settling in Northern Ireland and Rhodesia or Spainish Catholics in Latin American countries or Jewish people in Israel).
The differances are insignificant the system is the same.
I guess, Mooser, both the settler and the native can be white, as in Ireland? Anybody know the ethnic makeup of Northern Ireland as between those of Celtic and those of English? And, aren’t Jews and
Palestinians both of semitic extraction? Are semites classified as “white?”
Kinda confusing. Also not sure what distinguishes with a bright line “white colonialism” from other conquests throughout history?
“The thing to remember is that someone who is Pro-Israeli is first and foremost a Colonialist. ”
Based on what? What you say could just as easily be applied to someone who is “pro-American.”
“So back to the question in this article, anyone who is Pro-Israeli would never be in favor of removing the settlers in the West Bank. ”
That’s just plain stupid. It’s demonstrably not true.
“I cannot think of one single case in the history of Colonialism where white settlers voluntarily chose to remove themselves without the native populations forcing them to.”
Yamit. And Gaza. The Israelis didn’t exactly get routed in Gaza, and they certainly weren’t forced from Yamit.
If I didn’t know any better, I’d say you were one of those far-rightist arguing the Israelis should never give up land because nobody gives up land.
Yes it is. You insist that there are some settlements that CANNOT be removed. So does Witty. So it is, in fact, demonstrably true.
I didn’t insist anywhere that there are settlements that cannot be removed. The post asked for why I thought the 2ss was more reasonable than the one-state solution. I have nowhere opined on whether I believe all the settlements can be removed. I suspect that since you probably look at every Israeli community as a settlement regardless of where it is, it’s not worth answering your question.
“I suspect that since you probably look at every Israeli community as a settlement…”
Hey Hophmi! Is that some more of that “good faith” you were talking about?
You know, for a lawyer, you would make a pretty good doorman. Just swing it wide open, baby!
“Hey Hophmi! Is that some more of that “good faith” you were talking about?”
LOL. Practice good faith, and you’ll get it.
Funny, hophmi, you still haven’t told us what you think about 2SS requiring the 1967 Green Line to be feasible. In fact you deliberately chose to hide your opinion on the matter.
Why is that? Why won’t you answer the question directly?
“LOL. Practice good faith, and you’ll get it.”
Ah, I see. So the Jewish thing to do is not to have any ethical standards of your own, but instead to tailor your ethics to your self-serving interpretation of what others do? Damn, I knew I shouldn’a gone to that stupid Reform religious school. I bet my Bar Mitzvah isn’t even valid!
Hophmi, could you check, and let me know?
“Funny, hophmi, you still haven’t told us what you think about 2SS requiring the 1967 Green Line to be feasible”
Why do you care? You don’t believe the Green Line’s a legal border anyway.
You are afraid to answer the question, hophmi. I was making an assumption about what you really believe. I have yet to be disproven by anything you have said.
As you have pointed out, I’ve made my personal stance about the Green Line perfectly clear. Now tell us yours.
Everything Israeli outside of the bounds of the original UN charter is a illegal settlement…that’s an already decided matter of law.
The “Wall” is also illegal according to the ICC.
As is all the land ‘won’ in war..also a long ago settled matter of international law and in the Rome statutes.
Face it…you’re just illegal every which way.
of course you think it is more reasonable Hophmi it insures less rights and more abuse to the palestinbians so of course to you its a better option.
I have no particular feeling for the Green Line. It’s imaginary; a basis for negotiation, not a border.
That’s not “no particular feeling.” You reject it. And it’s not surprising.
Israel took land by force and at gunpoint and you want Israelis to be able to keep it.
Wrong. Arabs rejected an option for the State back in 1947.
Since there was no State, it’s no man’s land by international law.
The comparison between Pro-Israeli and Pro-American is completely false.
I stated “Someone who is Pro-Israel is first and foremost a Colonialist”. You then said “Could just as easily be applied to somone who is Pro-American”.
I would reply that someone who was Pro-American during those early days of America would have naturally also been a Colonialist. Since that is what America represented at that time and why they were called “the colonies”.
At present in Israel you have the same dynamic as those early America colonies. Israel is a colonialist state so anyone who supports Israel (ie Zionist) is supporting Colonialism.
I also note that you mention Yamit and Gaza to reply to my comment on Colonialists never voluntarily giving up land so you also seem to acknowledge that these settlements are a form of Colonialism?
Also while you are right that Israel wasn’t “routed from Gaza” the viability of protecting Jews living on the Gaza Strip meant the Israeli’s were forced to give it up. Same thing with Yamit the sustainability of the IDF having to defend a small Israeli population in the Sinai meant that it was probably wisiest to give it up. In short the two colonies had become unsustainable.
“I would reply that someone who was Pro-American during those early days of America would have naturally also been a Colonialist. Since that is what America represented at that time and why they were called “the colonies”. ”
Ah. So as long as the crime is sufficiently in the past, it doesn’t matter.
“I also note that you mention Yamit and Gaza to reply to my comment on Colonialists never voluntarily giving up land so you also seem to acknowledge that these settlements are a form of Colonialism?”
Hardly. The Sinai and Gaza were captured in a defensive war. That hardly fits the traditional definition of colonialism.
“Same thing with Yamit the sustainability of the IDF having to defend a small Israeli population in the Sinai meant that it was probably wisiest to give it up. In short the two colonies had become unsustainable.”
Not really. Israel felt it was worth more to have peace with Egypt than to have Yamit. This does not at all fit your theory that the Israelis were forced out, no matter how much you torture it. On the contrary, the creation of the settlement of Yamit, and the vast military superiority of the Israelis over the Egyptians helped bring peace, suggesting that when there is a serious partners, the Israelis do evacuate settlements.
The Sinai and Gaza were captured in a defensive war.
Nope. Aggressive war. Perfect case of colonialism. As soon as Israel got their hands on it, they sent in colonists.
Despite Dr Gonzo’s assertions Israel is not a form of colonialism, of whatever type. As a Dr , you should know that if your diagnosis is wrong, your prescriptions and treatment will be off-base as well.
So how would you describe Israel’s presence in the Occupied Territories then?
The 67 war was started by Israel. This hardly meets the definition of a defensive war.
A bunch of white guys come from Europe, kick the natives out by force and proceed to exploit natural resources with impunity on one hand while transplanting European species of flora (and fauna) in Palestine? And that’s not colonialism? Jon? Really? Really, jon, your people aren’t colonists? Even if you could make the case that Israel proper isn’t a colony, Sinai and Gaza definitely were and Golan and the West Bank continue to be. Making the argument that Israel and Zionism aren’t colonialist in nature is just silly and disingenuous. Two loaded words for you: Eretz Israel.
no because later on the native people signed away sovriegnty
no war Israel has ever fought has been defensive. and even if it was land is not allowed to change hands because of war. this has been customary law for decades now.
I am also not an israeli visitor, but had the pleasure to have israelis as friends for years. They left Israel, because they do not agree with the zionist governments and their bloody policy, according to them they just do not comply with jewish traditions.
In case of 2SS the international law should be fully applied, without deviations or taking into consideration jewish or palestinian interests, because otherwise there never be a solution. As the saying goes, have three jews in a room, you will have four different opinions.
International laws say, one cannot occupy and inhabit land taken by force, therefore Israel must leave all areas conquered during 1967 or later.
All settlers/colonists must depart from the WB, Syria, Gaza and Lebanon, taking their belongings with them and returning to their original land where they are citizens. The french did it from Algeria, although many of them were there up to a century. Buildings will not be destroyed, but turned over to the palestinians as part of the reparation payments. The wall of shame will be removed by the israelis. Any jewish settlement in the WB would be a provocation and a cause for constant problems between the two groups.
In addition, the palestinian refugees should be able to return to their home where they lived for centuries and their properties should be returned to them or if that is not possible anymore, they will receive a compensation.
If the jews have the right of return after 2,000 years, then the same must apply to the refugees after only 65 years!!!
This would take care of Israel being a jewish state, democratic laws should apply to ALL inhabitants.
As far as who will remove the settlers? The IDF is a big bad military force, they should do it either the easy or the hard way. It will be bloodier if the palestinians do it, perhaps with a help from their arab brothers.
And who will pay for re-settling the squatters? The US Congress has promised aid to Israel through 2018.
Naive question: Could it be linked to dismantling the obscene settler enterprise and away from military toys and bloat that produces nothing for Israel?
Ellen
Who paid for the german refugees who had to leave Poland, Hungary, Checoslovakia, etc? How about those colonists who left African states, India, Pakistan, etc.
All colonists should pay their own fare, basta.
Right, no one paid for them.
They made their way or simply stayed…..if they did not want to leave and could stay.
And many of them had living in those areas (ie. Prussia, Hungary, Romania) for hundreds of years before they became refugees. Much sorrow and pain and missing the “Heimat” but it was an accepted fate.
The calculations are already being made as the costs of relocation out of the illegal settlements, and do not expect it to be left out of any so-called “final agreement.” And since the US is so entrenched with Israel, and gives so much in aid, do not be surprised if US taxes are tapped to pay for it.
Remember, our Congress does not work for American citizens.
As far as I know, most of the cost of resettlement of the Germans who were transferred from the East was paid for by Germany & Austria. 15 million ethnic Germans were transferred, the largest transfer in modern history. 2 million died along the way. Many of those ethnic Germans had lived in their former land for hundreds of years and were apolitical and some had actually worked against Hitler’s forces. They were all forced to move simply because they were of German blood.
“They left Israel, because they do not agree with the zionist governments and their bloody policy….”
…leaving Israel to those who do agree with the Zionist governments and their bloody policy!
I hope they received a thank-you card or at least help with their moving expenses from the government in return for their support.
“If the jews have the right of return after 2,000 years, then the same must apply to the refugees after only 65 years!!!
This would take care of Israel being a jewish state, democratic laws should apply to ALL inhabitants.”
Great comments
so why do they get to keep what they took through force before 67?
In the first place the problem North envisions could easily be foreseen and elided in a peace deal by merely not having Israel do nothing at all as regards its settlers. The deal is signed, borders are set as of X date, and those settlers who are outside of those borders on that date are no longer living in Israel, period.
But this is all fantasy anyway in my opinion. North’s entire equation assumes that there’s a huge distinction between “Israel” (the gov’t thereof, that is), and “the settlers.” The facts for a long time now clearly show that the settlers have more than enough of a hold on the GOI so that it’s never going to agree to abandon any significant number of settlers in any way, shape or form, period.
So any GOI that even tried to do so would fall well before any such agreement was even tentatively made, much less made and ratified.
It’s impossible to imagine Israelis treating Palestinians as genuine equals in every regard to them: equal rights to land and water, which must be shared in a fair way. The 2ss as currenlty envisaged is a fig leaf for doing nothing and carrying with their privileged and subsidised lifestyle. A real 2ss would involve a major rethink by Israelis of what Israel is, and what it is for, and whether its raison d’etre has radically changed with time. It would involve reparations on a large scale, equality and an understanding that Palestine must thrive and be open for it to work. There is no glimmer of any kind of understanding other than the most mean, grudging minimal ‘solution’, which is not much different to what exists now: a separatist, apartheid structure in which a ghetto Palestine will be completely ruled by Israel. And that is no solution. It is pointless to talk of a 2ss, without thinking through what that means, as if merely paying lip service to a feeble toothless state (and one which Israelis would never accept for themselves), safely parked in the forever future absolves ‘liberal’ Israelis from any responsibility for the oppressive, totalitarianism that Israel practices towards Palestine now.
And, incidentally, the outlines for a solution have been on the table for decades, and yet Israel has never replied seriously, or taken them as the starting point for negotiations, which makes it hard for anyone to believe they have any genuine desire to settle along these lines. If Israelis believe their governments have had any interest in a real 2ss I pity their naivety.
James, either questions or options are futile. The settlers are there because Israel wants them there and they won’t move from there because Israel doesn’t want to move them and their American benefactor is not either.
Back in 2002, a Peace Now survey showed that 68% of the Gaza and WB settlers would relocate to Israel proper if someone picked up the tab. This is understable since most had moved there for nothing more than affordable housing made possible by Israel’s theft of land, cheap Palestinian labour and a never drying up source of American cash. The number of settlers back then was 200,000. 6% said they would resist an order to withdraw and 2% said they would resist by all means.
Israelis that shoot off their mouths with slogans about others that never fail to miss opportunities sure missed that one themselves and time has proven that Israel is not interested in giving up any territory, not even for peace.
In 2003, the Jewish Forward repeated the same poll and suggested that the settlers could be easily bought out to resolve the conflict to both parties’ satisfaction:
“… polling data indicates that the vast majority would relocate either to the large settlement blocs around Tel Aviv and Jerusalem — which the Palestinians have indicated a willingness to accept — or to homes within the pre-1967 borders. A study conducted by Hopp Research for the Israeli organization Peace Now indicates that as many as 60% of the settlers would not only obey a lawful order to evacuate, but would also be “prepared to accept a withdrawal from the settlements in exchange for suitable financial compensation.”
The Hopp poll shows that 80% of the settlers currently living in the West Bank relocated in order to improve their quality of life. For the last 20 years, offering Israelis persuasive economic incentives to move to the West Bank and Gaza has been a central policy of successive Likud-led governments. These include tax breaks worth approximately $4,000 per settler, subsidized down payment and mortgage interest rates, and per capita spending per settler that is more than double that for Israelis living within Israel’s pre-1967 borders.
The Hopp study makes it clear that most of the settlers currently living in the West Bank are not zealots; they do not agree with the hardliners who believe that Israel must keep the West Bank and Gaza because either the security of the state of Israel requires it or the coming of the Jewish messiah demands it. Unlike the minority of zealots, most settlers came to the territories in order to escape crowded low-income neighborhoods — to take advantage of an quality-of-life offer they could not resist.
Read more: link to forward.com
Now fast forward to Wikileaks and Haaretz 2 weeks ago when it was reported that Danny Dayan, the chairman of the Yesha Council of West Bank settlements had told U.S. officials that some settlers would be willing to move to Israel proper in exchange for financial compensation.
All this to say that what Israel keeps claiming about the impossibility of evacuating the WB is BS. Israel simply is not interested in leaving any part of the WB and wants to continue in its thieving, lying and assassinating ways until most of the Palestinians will have disappeared. Thanks to Israel’s gimmicky and ongoing 40-years of bogus negotiations, it has raised the total number of settlers to about 500,000.
Basically what Mearsheimer believes
link to mondoweiss.net
“Is there any reason to believe the same thing would not happen in Israel?”
I may report this post for anti-Semitism. To what else, except inexperience or unmitigated temerity, can we ascribe the assertion implicit in the statement that the Israeli action can be predicted by comparing them with the ordinary breed of humanity in similar situations? It’s enough to make one stand up and go plotz! or even potrzebie!!
Mooser, the other day you mentionned that you are in the Putrid Sound region and welcomed non Zionist Mondoweissers. Is that offer still good?
“The Litvaks”, my all Jewish sport-bike posse, is open to all. We accommodate non-Jews in the “Righteous Gentiles Motorcycle Club”, and women ride in our auxiliary “The Bitchin’ Balboosta’s”
Our motto: “Eat, Pray and Ride, Already!” applies any time we can get ten members together on a weekend morning.
Apart from that, if you’re in the Putrid Sound are, and anywhere near Ketchup County or Bummertown, I’d love to have you visit us at our custom-made, double-narrow refrigerator box.
“potrzebie”
We used to see this word in Mad comics. Our Latin teacher, who was Polish, told us it was the dative case of “need”.
And we believed him.
What you you think it means?
Potrzebie (as explained by Mad editor) = fershluginner=flabbergasted
Plotz=fall over with excitment
Actually, in polish to go “po potrzebie” means going to the lavatory, similar to english “I need to go”.
I think North abusively generalizes about settlers views and behavior and legal standing.
There are MANY other options besides forcefully removing 500,000. My view is that forced removal on any basis is an ethnic cleansing.
Whoever is moderating this, likely North given his prior comments to posts before the originals appeared, refused my early posting that was more than critical of North.
The operative difference in your mind being, it’s perfectly fine for Jews to wage ethnic cleansing, because you are a Zionist zealot. If a thief steals something from a victim, taking that item back and returning it to the victim is never theft itself.
Israeli citizens have a right to live IN ISRAEL. Seriously, why are you and hophmi so intent on tearing down laws that were made in response to the Holocaust? Why do you think the answer to a shoah is to inflict shoah on others?
“My view is that forced removal on any basis is an ethnic cleansing.”
Your view is immoral and racist. You think that because Israeli Jews acquire land through theft they have the right to keep it.
And anyway, Richard, we know you don’t oppose ethnic cleansing in principle. It just depends on who is doing the cleansing.
“Your view is immoral and racist. You think that because Israeli Jews acquire land through theft they have the right to keep it. ”
And you think that if the Jews were Muslims, the Palestinians would have the same reaction to them.
Donald,
Are you serious that you would act to forcefully remove 500,000?
You don’t like an academic comment I made about an event 63 years ago, but you would do similar in the present?
My proposal has been consistently to regard the green line as border and allow settlers to pay to perfect title on land that they reside, and be Palestinian citizens, abiding by Palestinian law.
If they want to be Israeli citizens they can return to Israel.
The principal of not displacing residents from their home is important.
Never mind that you can’t seem to get it through your head that there are Palestinian Christians as well, hophmi, but I suppose copping to that upsets your culture clash, war on Islam agenda for the US for Israel’s sake, doesn’t it?
“Are you serious that you would act to forcefully remove 500,000?”
If they don’t move voluntarily, then force absolutely should be used.
“My proposal has been consistently to regard the green line as border and allow settlers to pay to perfect title on land that they reside, and be Palestinian citizens, abiding by Palestinian law.”
The problem with this idea are (atleast) three-fold.
First, it permits resident aliens to decide immigration law of the state into which they wish to join.
Second, what if the Palestinians do not wish to sell the land at any price? Forced sale (i.e., eminent domain) is a right of a soverign, not of a bunch of resident aliens. Yet you would transfer it to the alien population.
Third, who would set the price? If the Palestians quoted a price of one trillion sheckels per square meter, then what?
“The principal of not displacing residents from their home is important.”
Not really. They all moved into that area knowing that they were colonists involved in a colonial enterprise. One of the risks they knowingly undertook was the risk that the natives would regain possession of the land the colonists stole. Oh, well, too bad, so sad, don’t let the door hit you on the ass.
Donald, are you saying that you would punish 500,000 Jews for participating in gross violation of the Geneva Conventions and participating in imperial colonialism and all of the dirty ethnic cleansing, pogroms, etc. that it entails? Why don’t you recognize Jewish exceptionalism like Witty does?
The vast majority of Palestinians are Muslim, not Christian. But go ahead, persist with your illusions.
The principal of not displacing residents from their home is important.
its ‘principle’ not ‘principal’, and the principle at stake is israeli adherence to international law.
I have to confess I assiduously sift through Richard Witty’s posts seeking that occasional nugget. Today, I feel I’ve hit the mother lode with the above “Witty Plan” (aka “The Choice”). Richard’s key (though understandably unspoken) insight is that negotiation with Israel is futile and must be replaced by a simple choice between two viable options .
But, perhaps Richard shies away from the logical conclusion of his plan. For if he can envisage the settlers (surely the most committed of Zionists?) choosing to live as Palestinians then the single state must be a very viable option.
So, I suggest broadening the Witty Plan to encompass all Israelis – they must choose between a single state or the 67 borders (with facts on the ground indicating the decision – no slipping back into pointless negotiations).
Of course, I suspect Richard might be (rather cunningly) assuming that, faced with becoming a Palestinian, every last settler will scuttle overnight back behind the 67 border. But this mind-focussing prospect of treating “the Other” as equal is effectively retained in this updated plan.
I certainly hope Richard can endorse this more inclusive and comprehensive version of his plan. As he’s done all the intellectual spade work I think it only fair that it retains his name – though I can understand him declining out of modesty (certainly not from fear of being ‘Goldstoned’).
“The principal of not displacing residents from their home is important.”
Not if they didn’t acquire the home in a legal and moral way, it’s not. You once claimed that some settlers acquired their homes in an ethical fashion–I wouldn’t know, but if so, those people have a right to stay. They really are in “their homes”. The others are beneficiaries of a war crime.
As for whether they should be forced to leave, that depends on what sort of agreement is reached, but most have no right to be there.
And to compare this to what happened in 1948 (whether to Palestinians or to any Jews forced out of their homes) is an obscenity. But I’m used to that from you, Richard. Your idea of a just solution is that the Israelis get as much as they can out of all the decades of theft and then declare peace.
“And you think that if the Jews were Muslims, the Palestinians would have the same reaction to them.”
Yeah, I think that if the Israelis who stole land from Palestinians and treated them like dirt were Muslims, the Palestinians would have essentially the same reaction to them.
What a stupid question, hophmi. In the Middle East there are corrupt dictators who are widely hated by their people, civil wars between Sunnis and Shiites and so forth. So yeah, it does appear that when one group of Muslims oppresses another, the oppressed group tends to resent it. That’s apart from Chaos’s point that Palestinian Christians also resent what Israelis have done to them.
The principal of not displacing residents from their home is important”
Well then, you would be for the Palestine right to return to the homes and land they fled and were forced off of … right?
The vast majority of “settlers” purchased homes or leaseholds believing that the title to that property was perfected and legal to convey.
A considerable minority were born in the communities. They are children or young adults, that are just that, civilians.
You demonstrate the exercise of ‘dehumanizing’ the Jewish residents of the West Bank.
There is no question that the consequences are confusing, and nearly certainly result from a great deal of illegality. The point of reform or revolution is the establish law NOW, in the present.
Retributive forced removal defers the establishment of clear law now, in favor of the retribution, what should be in the past, rather than what should be and is institutionalized in the present forward.
‘Make them pay’ is NOT a leftist approach. It is exactly the opposite. And, it is not justice. It is only the sliver of justice that is retributive.
In a relationship, it is USELESS to ask that the other undo some wrong that they did in the past. The significance of keeping things functioning is to address what factors affect what can happen in the present.
The vast majority of “settlers” purchased homes or leaseholds believing that the title to that property was perfected and legal to convey.
by selecting “facts” and “ignoring” Palestinian rights? Could we call that anti-Palestinian?
It was the most cheap way to get a home and financial support from state and outside groups, but they weren’t aware of why this is so at the time?
Didn’t they over and over again stress certain facts and legal ideas: terra nullius, or no people has rights to land as long as it has no state? There exists a database by now that shows that much of the land was simply confiscated by a state that had no right to do so under the circumstances.
Chaos somehow surrendered to his frustration not only with his comparison of Ben Gurion and Osama Bin Laden.
On the other hand your invented Hamas, Al Quassam Brigades, Commanders, Leaders quote reminded me of childhood disputes, were out of pure frustration one invented things to make one’s point. That wasn’t only “ignoring” certain facts and selectively using others. That was willful deception. Don’t you think it harms your ethical and balanced self-presentation? Why don’t you try to explain why you did it in an article? That would be a move forward. I am sure Phil can advise you dealing with the issue honestly.
Which leads us to the center of the origins of this debate. Which to a large extend seems to be a reaction the anti-Arab-image-production of specific forces in our larger discourse during the last decade. It’s about power, isn’t it? The power to control the debate with the accompanying accusation of antisemitism and self-hate as one of the main argument. That’s what makes matters slightly more complicated than they were in the early times of Zionism. The focus of the dissidents discourse is now the missed opportunities on the side of the hawkish Israelis and their supporters to help bring about a Palestinian state instead of believing the taking of others land can go on forever.
the anti-Arab-image-production by specific forces
There are other things I would like to change, but it was too long for the edit time frame. But this immediately sticks out.
LeanDor,
If you are to punish those that have had the audacity to accept government benefits (from any government), that exerted some cost on others, you would punish the vast majority of westerners, you probably included.
The individuals are civilians. The children that were born there, that live there, are not evil. They are children living in their home.
The quote was not invented. That is North’s invention.
You kill me Richard. You put the term “settlers” in quotes–to you they are just the “Jewish residents of the West Bank”. They’re all just innocent people who live there profiting from an apartheid system in all innocence.
The settlers should be compensated by the Israeli government, if the Palestinians decide they don’t want them living on stolen property.
And incidentally, Richard, it’s interesting that you’d limit the Palestinians returning to Israel proper to those aging victims of 1948, but you’ve got no problem with demanding that Palestinians accept 500,000 Israeli Jews profiting from a war crime.
.
“The individuals are civilians. The children that were born there, that live there, are not evil. They are children living in their home.”
If the Palestinians want the stolen land back, the Israeli government should help those families relocate. There’s no injustice here Richard. People steal and their children benefit from the theft. The thieves don’t get to hide behind their children when arguing why they should continue to benefit.
Entirely missing from your sob story is any hint that Palestinians might have suffered from any of this. But Palestinian suffering is of no consequence to you compared to that of a “Jewish resident of the West Bank”.
Forced removal is forced removal.
In the present, you are urging it, Donald. Look squarely at that, and consider if there are alternatives that don’t require a politically motivated forced removal.
“In the present, you are urging it, Donald. Look squarely at that, and consider if there are alternatives that don’t require a politically motivated forced removal.”
As usual, Richard, you always pretend not to see any moral issue that doesn’t go in your favor. The settlers are there in violation of international law, benefiting from apartheid. That clearly doesn’t bother you in the slightest. What you care about first and foremost is that Zionist expansion always pays–you are willing to call a halt to it so long as no beneficiary of illegal land grabs is inconvenienced.
As for alternatives are entirely up to the Palestinians to decide. Not you and not me and not the settlers. If they want to adopt your proposed solution of their own free will and not because they are forced to do it, then that’s fine with me. If they can squeeze just compensation out of the Israeli government or the settlers or both, then they might see some benefit in doing this.
But I know that the rights of Palestinians mean absolutely nothing to you if they conflict with the “rights” of settlers.
So it was OK for Jewish colonists to forcibly remove Palestinians — that’s not a crime — but it is a crime to remove those who are breaking international law?
So Witty, if enough illegal Mexicans saturate California, does it revert to the Mexican government? That’s basically a prettier version of the nonsense you’re suggesting (at least the Mexican immigrants just want to have an honest job, not run people out of their homes at gunpoint and purge whole towns of non-Hispanics)
are you telling us that the majority of settlers “purchased” the property without knowing it was illegally taken in war?
no they knew they had no right to it they just didn’t give a damn.
no they are children living in other people’s homes that the problem you refuse to accept that basic fact and truth.
The vast majority of “settlers” purchased homes or leaseholds believing that the title to that property was perfected and legal to convey.
source?
the vast majority thought god gave them the land. in their mind this supersedes ‘legal’.
“the vast majority thought god gave them the land. in their mind this supersedes ‘legal’.”
Source? It’s simply false. The majority of the settlers are secular, not religious.
Secular Jews with a belief they have a God-given right to Jerusalem, and extend that definition of Jerusalem clear to the Jordan River. Riiiiiight. Secular.
chaos, there’s nothing inherently spiritual or religious about colonialists.
There’s nothing particularly secular about them, either. It’s a cult of ultra-nationalism and ethnic supremacy.
Ethnic supremacy.
Yeah. I like it.
You know, it feels exceptionally strong whether you are traveling between Israel and neighboring countries.
There are MANY other options besides forcefully removing 500,000. My view is that forced removal on any basis is an ethnic cleansing.
sure. they could withdraw voluntarily. that’s an option.
Or the Israeli government could stop funding them, withdraw their troops, end the occupation and wash their hands of the settler enterprise and start acting like a country that adheres to international law. Israel as a nation is responsible for the population transfer but really, US-Israeli realpolitik doesn’t place sacrificing a few “pawns” (because really that’s all the settlers ultimately are in Israel’s land grab strategy) if that’s what the elite special interests demand. “No Child Left Behind,” “Single payer is off the table,” after all.
Or the Israeli government could stop funding them
Uhhh. “Or the US government could stop funding them”
Is there a functional difference? Right now the two statements are functionally congruous.
“My view is that forced removal on any basis is an ethnic cleansing.”
No, it’s not. These colonialists in these settlements are not an indigenous population. Removing them is not being undertaken in order to create an ethnically heterogeneous population, but to remove a colonial project in order to revert to the status quo ante.
The fact that the colonials are all Jews is merely an accident of the colonial process, undertaken by the Jews, themselves. It’s not the Palestinans fault that it was mostly Jews who decided to steal land in these settlements in Palestine, so those theives have no grounds to yell, “foul” when they are stripped of their ill-gotten gains.
.
If you form a new state and find that it includes some settlers planted by the previous regime then what could you do?
If you say that you do not want these people on any terms within the new state because they are of an unwelcome race then that is ethnic cleansing. What else? It’s an expulsion or ‘cleansing’ and is based on ethnicity.
The fact that they have no valid title to their property does not make it necessary to deny them any place at all in the new dispensation. They might now be able to buy properties with genuine money in a genuine transaction. If property settlements are genuinely sought by the former settlers but obstructed by the new government because of the settlers’ race that would still be ethnic cleansing.
If a property settlement is sought in good faith but cannot be made or if the former settlers explicitly state that they do not wish to be citizens of this place then there is little alternative to their leaving – but in that event they are not being cleansed but cleansing themselves of the new order which they reject. The basis of their leaving would not then be their race but their hostile attitude to the new state or their refusal to commit resources to it.
I profoundly hope, in spite of my disagreement with Zionism and all its arguments, that no state will ever be formed for any reason which says or even mutters under its breath ‘Jews not welcome here’.
That would be my hope but Zionists have literally spent over half a century antagonizing their neighbors in the region — both publicly and through black ops like bombing campaigns (both from plains and from intel squads that we are told in no way resemble terrorist cells), assassinations, and even overtly criminal enterprise (remember the supply line of the international organ trafficking operation that was exposed when all of those New Jersey rabbis were exposed for corruption a couple years ago? Can anyone name any rabbi among them who wasn’t a vocal Zionist? I’m not aware of any). Take a look at the Lavon affair. Zionists have a vested interest in artificially and directly creating animosity at Jews, in much the same way that Osama bin Laden thrives on creating animosity toward Muslims in Western countries to justify his fanatical zealotry. Fundamentally and functionally, there’s no difference between David Ben-Gurion and Osama bin Laden. They both have endorsed and provided the bankroll for terror in order to isolate and alienate the very people they falsely claim to be aiding (and in some cases, attacking those people directly and murderously), because they need people driven to them. Since no sane person would have anything to do with them under normal circumstances.
What I don’t get is why American Jews fall for this shit. American Muslims actually do suffer discrimination and religiously/racially motivated violence. Right now there is, quite literally, a McCarthyist witch hunt going on in the Republican Congress targeted at painting all Muslims as inherently disloyal to the United States. Now, Jews suffered some of that under the actual McCarthy, maybe, but it isn’t as if Jews had their property seized and have ever been thrown in a US prison under virtual life sentences for organizing Jewish charities. Nor has there ever been, in my lifetime (and probably for longer) any instance of a proposed synagogue being targeted and slandered the way the “ground zero mosque” was (and it wasn’t even a mosque!) It’s been generations since any American college has had “No Jews allowed” admissions standards.
I’ll be blunt. American Jews are privileged. I’m relatively privileged as a white male (you know, as long as I keep my homosexuality secret in public and don’t openly talk “fascistically” as Witty calls it, about things like racial equality or real universal health care or ending the wars and stuff like that) and there are certain prestigious fields that are hard to get into without ties to the Jewish community. Phil and Adam have spoken pretty earnestly about what the field of journalism is like nowadays and similar rules apply to most other fields of mass media and, to a lesser extent, finance. Let’s be honest — who was the last head of the Federal Reserve who wasn’t Jewish?
It’s not anti-Semitic to talk about facts. These are facts. And I don’t seek that privileged. I feel guilty enough for what I’ve gotten handed to me just by being white and male that people who are women or minorities have to work at least twice as hard for (and minority women, four times as hard for.) I think we need a genuine, egalitarian society, and I really am willing to see it through even if it means sacrificing the privileges that I enjoy.
I understand why a tiny minority of Muslims gravitate toward al-Qaeda. Disenfranchisement equals poverty, and poverty is the driving force behind almost all crime that isn’t white-collar. And unfortunately, some of the stuff which al-Qaeda has said about the US that used to be bullshit, isn’t bullshit anymore (Gitmo, Bagrham, the no-fly list, being kicked off of flights for wearing a hijab or praying in Arabic). But why do a majority (or I don’t know, maybe optimistically, at least half… I wish it were less but I’m thinking this is the one thing I’ll be saying that Zionist won’t attack viciously) of American Jews gravitate toward Zionism? What’s the motivation for wanting to become Shin Bet or Yesha or AIPAC (espionage scandals, ahem) for people whose religion / ethnicity opens doors in American politics and business, instead of closing them?
“Jews not welcome here,” very nearly became extinct language after World War II. Why did Zionists choose to prevent that?
I love when Chaos goes on a rant as above. His true thoughts and opinions come out, he just can’t help himself. Of course, he refers to them as “facts”. He even gets off the approved “It’s not about the Jews but about the Zionists’ track. The only thing missing is that we Jews/Zionists use Christian blood for matzah, though he kind of alludes to that in mentioning organ trafficking. The old Jews control certain professions canard and regular good old American white folk like Chaos can’t get in is in there.
However, in a way, I want the Chaos type on Mondoweiss, it just proves to the rest of us what’s really behind the anti-Israel stance.
In addition, he doesn’t know what he is talking about. “isenfranchisement equals poverty, and poverty is the driving force behind almost all crime that isn’t white-collar” Bin Laden isn’t poor, none of the Saudis on 9/11 were poor (Oh, yes, I forget, we Israelis did that one). Mohammed Atta was not poor. Major Hassan was not poor.
I agree with the notion that Jews or any other religious or ethnic group should be welcomed in the hypothetical new Palestinian state on an equal footing with everyone else, but that says nothing about welcoming them on property that they acquired immorally. Whether or not they get to stay on their illegally acquired property is something for the Palestinians to decide. If they choose to allow the settlers to “perfect their title” (Witty’s term for paying for stolen property), then that is their right. It’s not a right that the settlers have to demand.
But I also have a problem with this idea that Israelis could take advantage of decades of oppression and now start claiming that their very presence in the new Palestinian state is a moral right, when there is no right of return for Palestinians to go back inside pre-67 Israel. There aren’t 500,000 Palestinians living illegally inside the Green Line on land that they acquired because of Palestinian armed forces allowed them to do so.
This illustrates why I think that even if the Palestinians ultimately decide to give up their Right of Return, they shouldn’t do so prematurely. The Zionist side wants them to give up their fundamental rights from the very beginning, and then they have the gall to talk about the “rights” of the settlers to stay in “their” homes.
Basically, the Palestinians give up 78 percent right off the top and then the pressure is on them to honor the “rights” of hundreds of thousands of people who have been benefiting from apartheid.
‘Of course, he refers to them as “facts”. ”
And which of them aren’t?
Or don’t facts matter when you are crying “anti-Semite”?
LONGLIVEISRAEL- “The only thing missing is that we Jews/Zionists use Christian blood for matzah, though he kind of alludes to that in mentioning organ trafficking.”
That there has been Jewish involvement in organ trafficking is at this stage of the game beyond dispute, just as it is beyond dispute that there was Jewish involvement in the slave trade. Apparently, you consider this a form of anti-Semitism? That there is Gentile involvement in organ trafficking, and there was Gentile involvement in the slave trade is also beyond dispute. Would you consider these statements examples of anti-Gentile chauvinism? Want to know what I consider a classical example of anti-Gentile chauvinism? Your misrepresentation of Chaos comments as a blood libel. You should be ashamed!
“However, in a way, I want the Chaos type on Mondoweiss ….”
Something we agree upon! I think that Chaos statement that “I think we need a genuine, egalitarian society, and I really am willing to see it through even if it means sacrificing the privileges that I enjoy.”, exemplifies the high standards that I like to think I have, and that the rest of the progressive Mondoweissers support.
Good point. If Nethanyu is talking about a 30 to 40 year time period for a Palestinian state to be recognised, then the Palestinians should only agree to give up the right of return in the same period. E.g. give up 50,000 a year, year by year, as a guarantor of Israeli good behaviour. This can be judged by an independent panel (Mr Goldstone, don’t waste the stamp on sending your CV.) If Israel delays, or continues to harass the Palestinians, then that year is not released, and starts again.
Chaos,
It can be anti-semitic to select facts and ignore others.
But you’re not kicking them out because of their ethnicity, but because they were placed there by the enemy occupier. That is not ethnic cleaning, even if they are one ethnicity, because that fact is secondary to the fact that they were land thieves and colonialists . what is relevant is how they got there.
And if the Zionists’ shouts of “no Arabs are welcome here” over the last hundred-odd years, as their invading horde has overrun Palestine, results in someone muttering the same back at them, then they have only themselves to blame.
What, Witty? You mean like pretending that November 4th, 2008 never happened? You mean like condemning Goldstone when he writes about what he saw on the ground in Gaza and praising Goldstone when he parrots the talking points memo the Israeli government hands him?
Go ahead, call me an anti-Semite, Witty. Prove that you’re just the same as eee, hophmi and Lightbringer.
If this is so, then what is the special name given to those who do the opposite? Zionist? Anti-Palestinianst?
Woody,
The state is who did the illegal acts.
The settlers are literally just civilians.
There is a discontinuity of punishing civilians for the wrongs of a state. It is the definition of collective punishment, punishing civilians for the wrongs of a state or militia even.
The offering to the settlers to stay in Palestine as Palestinian citizens solves a few very large problems that greatly hinder the process of restitution at all.
Specifically, that there is no forced removal with a firesale for property, that is reminiscent of centuries of “legal” persecution of Jews wherever they lived. (They were always called “intinerant” NOT locals.)
That is remembered by those settlers that are reactive. The polls of those settlers that will fight any change are in the range of 2%. (A large number, but they know that they are a slim minority and will yield.) If the forced removal as policy is applied, that 2% will grow to 20%. (100,000 resisting being moved is a MUCH bigger issue than 10,000 resisting the option of losing their voting and defense rights in Israel.)
Oh, wow, more witty wisdom:
A month ago (and forever before) it was “Jews self-identified to create Israel.”
Now, it’s “L’état c’est moi.”
BS. they moved in knowing the states crime. that makes them criminals, too. And I doesn’t care if it reminds you of something that happened to other jews. these settlers knew the risks. And the Israels in 47-48 showed they know how to move a larg number of people. they can do it again to the settlers this time.
Witty, did the American settlers, e.g., those who went west on the Conestoga trail, take any land that was not their’s to take because it was already used by natives who considered it their homeland? Didn’t the US government authorize them to do so, and recognize their claim if it filled that government’s criteria? And did the US Cavalry uphold those property rights? Was there some difference between that scenario and say the white Affrickaners and their government?
Was it wrong to put world pressure on that apartheid government, or not?
“The settlers are literally just civilians”
Israeli citizens. Outside of Israel. Armed in any manner, they’re belligerents, valid military targets.
Without carrying a a visible emblem, they’re not covered by any conventions.
Except the minors of course, talknic. They’re the human shields wielded by the settlers in an attempt to give an air of legitimacy to what is nothing more than a gigantic land grab.
Imagine if 10% of America’s population moved migrated to US-occupied Iraq and started stealing land and water and continuously attacking Iraqis. Nobody in their right mind would claim these American settlers were civilians, not even if they had brought their kids along. It’s no different with the Israeli settlers attempting to overtake territory outside Israel.
The European settlers who colonized the Americas already committed a gigantic land grab at the expense of the Native American populations. And they weren’t threatened neither by war nor by terror. So at least I would expect you to take a position in favor of the dissolution of the United States, with the expulsion of its modern settlers in their respective countries of origin.
Are Native Americans still rounded up in prison camps? Are they denied citizenship and voting rights? Are there laws in the United States that prevent US citizens from marrying Native Americans? Do we have any of the First Nation tribes surrounded by an armed military siege?
You’re only proving that Israel behaves now, with the sort of cruelty and barbarity that the US behaved with a hundred years ago. Last time I checked, the story of US occupation and ethnic cleansing ultimately ended in the one state solution.
“Are Native Americans still rounded up in prison camps? Are they denied citizenship and voting rights? ”
No, enough of them were already killed off that it’s no longer necessary. But I’m not sure of the point of this comparison, since there are no Palestinian prison camps.
“Are they denied citizenship and voting rights?”
Are Israeli Arabs?
“Are there laws in the United States that prevent US citizens from marrying Native Americans?”
If Native Americans were launching suicide terrorist attacks and an Intifada against the United States, I don’t think it would take very long for a similar law to pass. The marriage law dates from 2003, the Second Intifada, not 1948.
“Last time I checked, the story of US occupation and ethnic cleansing ultimately ended in the one state solution.”
ROTFLMAO. It ended in the one state solution? So then I guess you’re in favor of the one-state solution that the extremist settlers propose – the one where the West Bank is ethnically cleansed of all Palestinians while a few Israeli Arabs get to stay.
jonah
Today they’re all citizens of the US in the US. The illegal settlers are Israeli citizens outside of Israel, STILL colonizing.
“And they weren’t threatened neither by war nor by terror.”
You literally have no idea what you are talking about. First, the history of American expansion is lousy with wars agaisnt the Native Americans, and the Americans often claimed that attacks by the Native Americans in opposition to the theft of Native American land was “terror.” For Pete’s sakes, the United States, itself, was pretty much formed because the British wanted additional revenue from the colonists, in light of the costs of protecting those colonists from the French and the Native Americans. (Which, hint, is why the North American portion of the Seven Years’ War is, in the US, referred to as the French and Indian War.)
“I would expect you to take a position in favor of the dissolution of the United States, with the expulsion of its modern settlers in their respective countries of origin.”
That would be a proper call, if the US government continued to hold Native Americans as stateless unpersons, without legal or political rights. But, instead, they’ve been made full citizens. And they should still be entitled to greater compensation for what has been stolen from them.
Don’t you zionists ever get tired of using Native Americans and other victims as rhetorical human shields?
“But I’m not sure of the point of this comparison, since there are no Palestinian prison camps. ”
Israel has turned the entirety of Palestine into one giant prison.
“Are Israeli Arabs?”
Second class citizens. Both de jure and de facto.
“If Native Americans were launching suicide terrorist attacks and an Intifada against the United States, I don’t think it would take very long for a similar law to pass. The marriage law dates from 2003, the Second Intifada, not 1948.”
Nonsense. Don’t try to smear America with your racist slime. To even think that such a law regarding marriage could be enacted in America in 2003 is a vile insult to every Americans, who you owe an apology.
“It ended in the one state solution? So then I guess you’re in favor of the one-state solution that the extremist settlers propose ”
No. The one state solution which America has put in effect means that Native Americans are entitled to complete legal equality and full civil and human rights. Too bad Israelis aren’t as civilized.
“The illegal settlers are Israeli citizens outside of Israel, STILL colonizing.”
In which foreign and sovereign nation, existing by virtue of which kind legally recognized rights to that territory and within which legally defined areas?
are you gargling? what the hoot kind of question is that? if you’re trying to make the point there is no ‘outside israel’ because israel refuses to acknowledge or define it’s own borders we get it.
“Nonsense. Don’t try to smear America with your racist slime. To even think that such a law regarding marriage could be enacted in America in 2003 is a vile insult to every Americans, who you owe an apology.”
ROTFLMAO. Get off your high horse. We threw thousands of Muslims in jail after 9/11 and no one cared. America has had a couple of terrorist attacks. Israel has had dozens. And even then, the marriage law was passed much later. I love America, but I also know that things can go bad if we’re under pressure.
“No. The one state solution which America has put in effect means that Native Americans are entitled to complete legal equality and full civil and human rights. Too bad Israelis aren’t as civilized.”
Oh. So the plan was, kill 90 percent of the population and then give them their rights. So I assume if Israel kills, say three million Palestinians in the West Bank and then offers full equality to whomever if left (in the form of poor reservations and casino vouchers), you’ll be OK with that?
we like to think the world has moved on from humanities genocidal past. we feel the same way about slavery. why are you and other hasbarist constantly conflating israel’s founding with america? it was a different era, a different century. it’s stupid and we can see thru it easily. what happened here was a crime against humanity, it doesn’t justify current zionist claims at all.
“We threw thousands of Muslims in jail after 9/11 and no one cared.”
No, a lot of people cared. Not enough, for sure.
And there is a difference between that type of atrocious executive actions, taken against a number of individuals, dispicable as those actions are, and the type of legislative action put in place in Israel.
“Oh. So the plan was… So I assume…”
Why is it that you can’t simply consider the arguments put to you; instead of doing the idiotic straw-man-restatement stuff you do?
My point was simple: the solution which the US has effectuated, to deal with the inequalities based on, e.g., race, ethnicity, religion, etc., is simple: complete legal equality and full civil and human rights for all people. It has not done enough with some communities, and certainly has not done enough to make up for past errors, sins and crimes, but, as a matter of present day policy, equality and protection of rights provides a damn good roadmap.
“No, a lot of people cared. Not enough, for sure. ”
Not many.
“And there is a difference between that type of atrocious executive actions, taken against a number of individuals, dispicable as those actions are, and the type of legislative action put in place in Israel.”
The US hasn’t had a string of terrorist attacks in the context of a land conflict.
“My point was simple: the solution which the US has effectuated, to deal with the inequalities based on, e.g., race, ethnicity, religion, etc., is simple: complete legal equality and full civil and human rights for all people. ”
Yes, after killing off most of the Native Americans, having de jure segregation for decades, followed by de facto segregation, some of which we still have with regard to the African-American community, the United States offered de jure equality through the Civil Rights Acts. And it was wonderful. And it would not have happened if there had been a concerted campaign of African-American terrorism against whites. I guarantee that the day non-violence is the overwhelming choice of the Palestinian community (and by overwhelming choice I mean not only toning down violence, but rejecting it a la Dr. King), there will be full civil rights (most of which are already there) in Israel.
America took 400 years to get to where it is today. Israel’s been around for little more than 60, and it’s way past where America at a comparable time in its development.
exactly ethnic cleansing is the removal of legal residents. as the settlers( and also though most people refuse to admit most Israelis) aren’t legal residents their removal is not nor can it ever be ethnic cleansing
Exactly, Woody. You can’t cry foul or anti-semitism if you’ve transcended the role of victim by subsequently choosing to act evilly.
They’re not settlers. They are interlopers. Israel can call them what they want. We Americans need to call them what they are. Especially when we’re footing the goddam bill against the majority of our own wishes.
that’s because your a bigot who is ignorant of the relevant law.
yes their are other options. none of which met the requirments and protections of basic property law which says if you get something illegally you have no right to it.
The whole idea of Zionism is surely that Jewish and non-Jewish people do not have equal rights in the Holy Land. Those who are Jewish have a share in sovereignty by full right, others only by grace, generosity and concession. Grace can be – and is – expressed by indicating that some land, such as that between the Jordan and the Euphrates rivers, may go unclaimed for ever, or until God makes His mighty sign or by enfranchising the Palestinian minority within 1948 Israel or by willingness in principle to set up small Palestinian enclaves in the 1967 territories. Others might not see these concessions as true acts of grace, but Zionist principle does not forbid them – indeed Zionism has never seen itself as inhumane, ungenerous, stinting in help to others or unready to examine its conscience in these respects. What it has to forbid, harsh as that may be, is any arrangement, even a 2ss, that says or implies that some non-Jewish people are there in the Holy Land by full right.
“The whole idea of Zionism is surely that Jewish and non-Jewish people do not have equal rights in the Holy Land. ”
Exactly. It’s Saleema’s “we matter and you don’t”.
Witty says: “It can be anti-semitic to select facts and ignore others.”
Redefinition Alert!
Witty says: “It can be anti-semitic to select facts and ignore others.”
How about this one:
It is not anti-semitic if it is the truth.
If a majority of Jews agree on a peace plan the vast majority of the settlers will accept it. Obviously there are going to be settlements that are going to be much more difficult to remove than others. For example, the people of Ariel are not ideologists and will leave for fair compensation if Ariel needs to be left (hopefully, its land will be swapped). However, Kiryat Arba is a different story and may contain hotheads that would require force to evacuate. Would a small number of them shoot at other Israelis? Possibly. But then they would lose all support from the Israeli public. The solution would be to lay siege on Kiryat Arba until they surrender peacefully.
The notion of a civil war is ridiculous. Just go over the list of influential Rabbis in Israel, and you will see that not one would condone a Jew firing on a Jew, no matter what. What we will have is just the repeat of the Gaza or Yamit evacuations. When you realistically count the number of people who would actually need to move and who would resist (non violently), it will be around 10,000-20,000.
eee:
May I inquire where you are getting your 10-20 thousand figure? I know that the P’s have made it clear that they would be interested in getting some “new” land in exchange for giving Israel some big settlements, so is your figure (even roughly, I’m not trying to pin you down or play games here) derived (again, even roughly) on the idea that if such already-talked-about exchanges took place that this would only leave those 10-20 thousand?
Or is it the number left over by merely counting how many settlements Israel has said it will insist on keeping?
I know that there have been many many categorical oaths made by any number of Israeli leaders, not least Netanyahu, saying that this or that settlement will never never never be abandoned.
Sin Nombre,
I assume that any accepted peace plan will involve land exchanges. This will take care of the majority of the settlers. In addition there are many settlers that are not ideological and will respect the majority decision. That is the case of Ariel and it 18,000 residents. Hopefully they can remain in Israel, but if not, their evacuation would be relatively easy as the vast majority would just leave of their own account.
If you go settlement by settlement, figure out which are likely to be swapped and the ideological bent of the people in it percentage wise, you come up with the 10,000-20,000 range. That is my estimate. Others are welcome to repeat the analysis and I would be happy to compare notes.
“Land exchanges?” It’s not exactly an exchange if the Israelis say, “Here, we’ll keep this land and water access we stole from you by gunpoint, you can have this lovely scenic land in the Negev Desert in exchange.”
The settlements are an overt crime, eee. You aren’t describing negotiation, you’re advocating for extortion.
Well thank you, eee. While your figures seem rather amazingly optimistic to me, I certainly have no specific grounds with which to challenge you and you certainly sound physically closer to the situation I, that’s for sure.
Maybe someone will indeed compare notes with you; would be interesting. And at any rate thanks again.
eee
land exchanges?
It is against the law and a crime to sell stolen goods, so there will be no exchanges or compensation, (if I had the power to enforce an end to this tragic episode).
The criminal colonists just pack up and leave, their real estate will be turned over to the rightful owners.
If there are compensations to be paid, then the palestinians will be on the receiving end.
i read somewhere a conservative number was 30,000.
“Just go over the list of influential Rabbis in Israel, and you will see that not one would condone a Jew firing on a Jew, no matter what.”
Erm, wrong: Rabbi Wolpo: Fire rubber bullets back at soldiers
Maybe you should read the whole thread ;)
Maybe you should learn the difference between and influential rabbi and a kook.
Should I judge the Islamic world by whatever Osama bin Laden says? I have a much better case than you do with Rabbi Wolpo.
…so you do judge the Islamic world by whatever Osama bin Laden says?
Did I say that? No. Go away.
Maybe you should learn the difference between and influential rabbi and a Kook
hophmi wins the Unintended Irony prize!
maybe you need to learn how to recognize an influential rabbi who is also a kook. like Israel’s Chief Ashkenazi Rabbi who has a reputation for incompetence, extorting money from marrying couples, forging signatures on marriage contracts and sexual abuse of women and boys.
ouch.
You said that you could make the case that it was more valid to consider an international outlaw and criminal as the spokesperson for Islam whereas you consider it absurd to do the same for a rabbi who gets government-subsidized housing in an illegal Israeli settlement, protected by a cadre of occupational military force and given privileged access to highways and walled-in land that bifurcate Palestinian communities.
Maybe you should explain this “much better case” to us that you think you can make, hophmi.
“incompetence, extorting money from marrying couples, forging signatures on marriage contracts and sexual abuse of women and boys.”
But this is just standard practice in religion, isn’t it?
But this is just standard practice in religion, isn’t it?
i don’t know about all religions but it goes without saying it’s prevalent for both christians (catholics!) and judaism. there is a different standard of coverage for those two, for the catholics you can read the msm, for jewish perversion check out failed messiah. but both are on the same par, it appears. it’s not like you have to search in the wayback machine, almost every week there’s something. for example April 21, 2011Seders For Survivors Of Sexual Abuse Reported To Be A Success: Hundreds of survivors are said to have attended. April 21, 2011:Rabbi Baruch Lebovits Free On Bail, April 18, 2011Anti-sex abuse advocates continue to say that Rabbi Baruch Lebovits – the convicted sex offender…., April 18, 2011: Convicted Sex Offender Rabbi Baruch Lanner May Be In Baltimore Over Passover, April 14, 2011:FBI Busts Israeli Rabbi For Allegedly Groping Woman On AirplaneMay 15, 2011:Agudah To Hold Meeting On Molestation – Without Experts!April 12, 2011: Rabbi Indicted For Sexual Assault (An indictment was filed Tuesday by the Jerusalem District Prosecutor’s Office against a well-known rabbi accused of sodomizing and performing an indecent act on his friend’s wife who was seeking his professional counseling.) April 11, 2011: The Four Sons Ask Questions About Haredi Child Sexual Abuse
this is just in the last 10 days.
“for both christians (catholics!) and judaism. there is a different standard of coverage for those two, for the catholics you can read the msm, for jewish perversion check out failed messiah.”
I suppose it is anti-Semitic to suggest that there is a reason why there is a different standard of coverage.
It is, both because the scale of the scandal in the Catholic Church is many times that in the haredi community, and also because the claim that the haredi scandal has not been covered in the MSM is simply not true, and the clear the suggestion is that it’s not there because the Jews control the media.
You’re ignorant.
Not one US MSM TV News talking head has ever mentioned the haredi scandal, nor has the subject appeared on any US tv, cable, satellite or otherwise, on any entertainment channel, such as Comedy Channel or HBO, etc. Catholic priests are the constant butt of jokes and news in US cultural media. Wayward Protestant ministers are a lesser target, among them the fundi ones are the butt of comment the most. OTH, one time, a rabbi was the pervert caught in the act on that internet Predators series. This passed without comment in the usual media. Similarly, the series of revelations about egregious conditions at the largest kosher meatpacking plant in the United State, in Iowa, has inspired no TV show I’m aware of regarding that glaring cultural conflict.
So you believe Wolpo is an influential Rabbi? Why do you think so? What is his following? There are plenty of nut cases in Israel, but few influential Rabbis.
I’ll be honest, I have no idea how influential he is as I’m not Israeli.
However his wikipedia entry describes him as: “a prominent religious author and political activist in Israel and a Chabad-Lubavitch rabbi.” 40 books published!
And the fact that the largest circulation daily in Israel finds this story important enough to cover shows that he has some influence – at least in the settler community.
Remember that’s what we’re discussing here – how the settlers might react to eviction.
However I’m keen to learn about these other Rabbi’s – you know the ones that don’t sign letters forbidding fraternising with Arabs, or selling houses to Arabs. Please let me know who they are…
Ta ta ;)
” There are plenty of nut cases in Israel, but few influential Rabbis.”
Yes sir, if their is one place I always turn to get information on Rabbis, it’s a self-declared “atheist Jew”.
Yeah, “eee” I bet you know a lot about Rabbis. As far as “nut cases” in Israel go, I defer to your intimate and timely knowledge.
I don’t know what I’m carping about. I should have accepted the fact that Zionism confers omniscience a long time ago.
Is THIS an influential Rabbi?
Chief Rabbi confuses Monty Python with history
Hur hur – just kidding ;)
i believe he is an influential rabbi because he said so.
mikeo! i am a huge fan of yossi gurvitz. everything he’s written that i’ve read thus far anyway.
Did you miss the part where Wolpo said that under no circumstances should anyone fire on an IDF soldier?
Chabad is controversial with the other sects and the haredim. So saying a rabbi is influential within Chabad is not necessarily saying much.
Did you miss the part where Wolpo said that under no circumstances should anyone fire on an IDF soldier?
yeah, i read it after watching the video of him calling for the opposite too. he’s was just trying to retract his army radio address.
saying a rabbi is influential within Chabad is not necessarily saying much.
oh really. maybe you should go tell wiki:
Mikeo great find. Is this real? An influential rabbi confusing a Monty Python skit with history? Israel, what a nutty country. All of those great intellectuals, secular socialist thinkers, being held in thrall to a bunch of medieval, religious nuts.
And they and their followers vote in the “only democracy int the ME”. What a joke.
watch max’s video How To Kill Goyim And Influence People: Leading Israeli Rabbis Defend Manual for For Killing Non-Jews if you’re under any illusion this wolpe fellow is in a class all his own.
mikeo, the fact that the largest circulation daily in Israel finds this story important
my link @ the April 22, 2011 at 12:26 pm post links to jpost, ynet, and arutz sheva. the articles all referenced wolpe’s screed on army radio. i’m assuming this was covered heavily in the hebrew press too. there’s a history w/this guy. ’08:
but what’s weird is the way the idf protects these nuts, like in hebron!
so it is not just the crazy rabbis it is the MK’s in the knesset who support them. and ultimately the idf who support them or else they wouldn’t be thousands of idf in hebron protecting these kooks, they would have been evacuated.
Er…..unless you think Israel owning the West Bank is a done deal you are seriously underestimating the number of setttlers who would have to be removed in any deal acceptable to Palestine.
Close to 500,000 Israelis live in the West Bank settlements, annexed East Jerusalem and the former Israeli-Jordanian no man’s land areas
As of July 2009, 304,569 Israelis live in the 121 officially-recognised by Israel settlements in the West Bank, 192,000 Israelis live in settlements in East Jerusalem and over 20,000 live in settlements in the Golan Heights.[9][10
An assessment by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in 2007 found that approximately 40% of the West Bank was taken up by Israeli infrastructure. The infrastructure, consisting of settlements, the barrier, military bases and closed military areas, Israeli declared nature reserves and the roads that accompany them is off-limits or tightly controlled to Palestinians
Approximately 30% of Palestinians living in the West Bank are refugees or descendants of refugees from villages and towns located in what became Israel during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War (see Palestinian exodus), 754,263 in June 2008 according to UNRWA statistics
Those are good questions James North is asking. I do however, somewhat shockingly, find myself in agreement with one thing GF above said – israelis WILL NOT go to civil war over the settlements. BUT, it is not because of what he posits, which positions rest on two prepositions (which are really just one, since they are not really independent):
1. there’s a tacit agreement among the MAJORITY Israeli populance that peace is, in fact, worthwhile enough to displace a “few” settlers, regardless of their screams of protestations, if need be.
2. there is an “agreement” to be had where it’ll indeed be only a “few” – on the order of, say, a few 10′s of 1000′s, making the settler numbers similar to those of Yamit, thus bolstering the validity of Preposition #1.
In combination, it is these two assumptions that inform GF’s presumption that the likelihood of a “civil war” is nil. I, OTOH, maintain that civl war is unlikely not because Israelis can and have taken on the settlers when needed, but because israel, as a whole, has been steadily moving towards the settlers en mass, obviating the likelihood of such an unfortunate turn of events. The change is already reflected in the vaunted officer ranks of the IOF slowly but surely filling up with members of the religious-nationalists. When that number reaches a critical mass (and it may already have), there is zero likelihood that the IOF will be either able or willing to carry out orders that meet settler opposition of even a relatively low intensity.
Yes, I know that these assumptions, bear an eery similarity to the pillars of logic underlying the Olmert-Abbas parameters and/or any other “peace precessing” (not a typo here, for a change). No wonder all such “plans” are still-born – DOA as soon as hatched.
Yet, it is in line with these assumptions that GF et al advise North to go find himself “some” israelis to talk to, upon which they would expect him to revise his own oh-so-faulty proposition that the prospect of a civil war in israel is a major hinderance to any REALISTIC 2 state “agreement”.
The problem with GF (and virtually all zionist – liberal or not – proponents of the illusive 2-state “solution”) is that both assumptions (propositions, if you will) rest on feet of clay. For one, there is no “majority” of israelis who think “peace” is worth an upheaval of their comfortable, or even not so comfortable, lives. It is only a minority that is willing to sacrifice anything at all, and that minority is fast diminishing. The majority of israelis don’t in fact see why they need to discomfit themselves in any way, especially if they don’t think they really have to. This kind of inertia is common to people anywhere, and israelis are no different in that regard. Except that in israel, political apathy and short-term self-interest get a huge boost from the accelerating pace of changing”Jewish” demographics. Israel’s population, by all credible accounts, is fast moving towards increasingly religious-nationalistic consensus because of sheer numbers (just think – 50% of all newborns in the past year were to orthodox and ultra-orthodox households). What may have been something of a consensus once, no longer is. What once could be called the “Israeli center” is already something of a “peace fringe”, confined to a motley crew of misguided “left-wingers” and/or “intellectual naifs” who just “don’t understand”. And that, GF, is based on numerous conversations with actual, living Israelis; a random sample, if you wish.
As for the second assumption hidden in GF’s presumptions, well, much ink has spilt on that, because presumptive it is. Bernard Avishai may discount the magnitude of the problem represented by Ariel and Jerusalem, calling them “minor stumbling blocks”. Most “realists” however, see these two alone for what they are — more like “show stoppers”. And that before we even get to the “thorny” issues of refugees, water rights, “land exchanges”, corridors to gaza, and the like.
The sad reality of all negotiations to date is that the parameters of Taba and geneva, such a they were, have long receded into the fog of distant memory. Bringing these up as examples of ‘almost agreements” is akin to conjuring ghosts. There were reasons that those “peace parameters’ never got off the starting block. And those reasons are stronger today than ever before – and getting stronger by the day.
It all gets us back to those pesky 2 assumptions above. The only difference between the various “pro-Israel”, “pro- 2 state” not-so-happy-campers are the nuances between those who hold onto them for dear life (ie, the Avishai/Larry Derfner/Bradley Burston troopsters), those who use them as a convenient club knowing they are way off the mark, and those who can’t tell the difference between assumption and presumption (and that, I suspect is our very own footloose GuiltyFeet).
“The sad reality of all negotiations to date is that the parameters of Taba and geneva, such a they were, have long receded into the fog of distant memory. Bringing these up as examples of ‘almost agreements” is akin to conjuring ghosts. There were reasons that those “peace parameters’ never got off the starting block.”
Yes, Danaa there was a reason the Clinton Parameters of Taba never took hold: The Palestinians rejected them.
What did the Palestinians do to reject it? Did they double the rate at which Palestinian settlements were increasing in Israel? Oh wait, I got that backwards, that was Israel colonizing Palestine as a rejection of the parameters.
So how did Palestinians reject parameters? I was specific in how Israel rejected them. Your turn.
Chaos4700,
You are here echoing Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, who make the same assertion in “The Israel Lobby”:
“The official Palestinian response thanked Clinton for his continued efforts, declared that considerable progress had been made, asked for clarification on some points, and expressed reservations about others. . . . Thus both the Palestinians and the Israelis accepted the Clinton Parameters and saw them as the basis for continued negotiation, but neither side accepted them in toto. . . . We will never know if peace was within sight by early 2001, but the charge that Arafat and the Palestinians rejected a last chance for peace and chose violence over reconciliation is false.”
This is simply untrue. On December 23, the Clinton Plan had been presented to both sides. Israel accepted the Plan in principle, with some reservations. As Dennis Ross would later write, Israel’s reservations were “within” the plan and Arafat’s were “outside” the plan. On December 27 Dennis Ross met with the PA’s Ahmed Qurei (Abu Ala) who informed the Americans of the Plan’s inadequacies and its unacceptability. Ross warned him about the consequences of rejection:
“[Y]ou will have Sharon as Prime Minister. He will be elected for sure if there is no deal, and your 97 percent will become 40 to 45 percent; your capital in East Jerusalem will be gone; the IDF out of the Jordan Valley will be gone; unlimited right of return for refugees to your state will be gone. Abu Ala, you know I am telling you the truth.”
Said the Palestinians in their official January 2, 2001 response to the Clinton Parameters:
“We wish to explain why the latest US proposals…fail to satisfy the conditions required for a permanent peace. It would…force the Palestinians to surrender the right of return for Palestinian refugees…We cannot accept a proposal that secures neither the establishment of a viable Palestinian state nor the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes.”
You call this an acceptance?! The answer explicitly rejected the alternative of compensation for the refugees and compensated resettlement elsewhere mentioned in the proposal, and could be summed up into two words: no deal.
Elsa Walsh of the New Yorker wrote in her March 24, 2003 article that Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia—no friend of Israel—said to Arafat on Jan. 2, 2001:
“Since 1948, every time we’ve had something on the table we say no. When we say yes, it’s not on the table any more. Then we have to deal with something less. Isn’t it about time we say yes?…If we lose this opportunity, it’s not going to be a tragedy, it is going to be crime.”
Wrote Walsh:
“Bandar believed that Arafat’s failure to accept the deal in January of 2001 was a tragic mistake—a crime really. [Bandar said] “I was there. I was a witness. I cannot lie…I still have not recovered, to be honest with you, inside, from the magnitude of the missed opportunity that January.”
Said Dennis Ross of Arafat’s rejection of the Parameters:
“[Arafat's] reservations were deal-killers, involving his actual rejection of the Western Wall part of the formula on the Haram, his rejection of the most basic elements of the Israeli security needs, and his dismissal of our refugee formula. All were deal killers.”
That “specific” enough for you?
You’re referring to this Dennis Ross, right? Just so I know we’re talking about the same guy here.
We’ve heard this load of crap about “The Best Deal Palestinians Ever Had,” usually paired up with the “never pass an opportunity to pass an opportunity” racist canard.
All during the negotiations, Israel ACCELERATED settlement building. Dramatically. Israel never had any intent of conforming to any agreement with the Palestinians. It was always about more and more and more ethnic cleansing to feed Israel’s lust for lebensraum.
Chaos4700,
“Israel never had any intent of conforming to any agreement with the Palestinians. It was always about more and more and more ethnic cleansing to feed Israel’s lust for lebensraum.”
Blah, blah, blah.
And your evidence of this “intention”?
Nothing.
The Parameters were rejected by the Palestinians.
Deal with it and stop confusing pro-rejectionist spin in service of your venomous hatred for Israel with demonstrable, verifiable facts.
Robert Werdine,
You are accepting Dennis Ross’s version of what happened. Daniel Levy, who was part of it working for Israel, disagrees with Ross. Levy said, essentially, there never was a desire on the part of Israel to reach a peace. (Published in HuffPo, if I remember correctly.)
Here’s another written by Stephen Zunes.
The United States and the Breakdown of the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process
Why is it that anyone who disagrees with a pro Zionist viewpoint is automatically deemed to have hatred for Israel?
“Why is it that anyone who disagrees with a pro Zionist viewpoint is automatically deemed to have hatred for Israel?”
Why do people always extrapolate from the specific to the general?
Werdine answered Chaos4700. Chaos disagrees with every pro-zionist viewpoint and Chaos hates Israel. I thought the truth was always supposed to make things better.
Werdine didn’t answer me. He parroted his own same discredited bullshit that MRW and myself knocked down, and called me an anti-Semite for reciting facts. Again.
Of course I can see where “Noun verb anti-Semite” sounds like a rational rebuttal to you, GF.
Chaos, dude, I was just responding to yesspam who wrote:
“Why is it that anyone who disagrees with a pro Zionist viewpoint is automatically deemed to have hatred for Israel?”
He was accusing Werdine of something when actually he was the one making the gross generalization.
Werdine was talking to you, accusing you of having hatred for Israel. Do you deny hating Israel?
Choas4700,
Your assertion that the Palestinians did not reject the Clinton Parameters in 2000/2001 has been thoroughly and verifiably disproved and discredited. Deal with it.
There is simply no room for debate over this. The official January 2, 2001 Palestinian response to the Clinton Parameters thus states:
“We wish to explain why the latest US proposals…fail to satisfy the conditions required for a permanent peace. It would…force the Palestinians to surrender the right of return for Palestinian refugees…We cannot accept a proposal that secures neither the establishment of a viable Palestinian state nor the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes.”
And
“The United States proposal reflects a wholesale adoption of the Israeli position that the implementation of the right of return be subject entirely at Israel’s discretion…. Recognition of the right of return and the provision of choice to the refugees is a prerequisite for the closure of the conflict.”
As I said before, the answer explicitly rejected the alternative of compensation for the refugees and compensated resettlement elsewhere mentioned in the proposal, and could be summed up into two words: no deal.
The rejection was unequivocal, unambiguous, immutable and incontrovertible: it said no.
Also, I did not call you an anti-semite. I accused you of having “venomous hatred for Israel.” Think that was unfair? Need some “specifics”? A few of your greatest hits from the last two days:
–“A bunch of white guys come from Europe, kick the natives out by force and proceed to exploit natural resources with impunity on one hand while transplanting European species of flora (and fauna) in Palestine? And that’s not colonialism? Really? Really, jon, your people aren’t colonists? Even if you could make the case that Israel proper isn’t a colony, Sinai and Gaza definitely were and Golan and the West Bank continue to be. Making the argument that Israel and Zionism aren’t colonialist in nature is just silly and disingenuous. Two loaded words for you: Eretz Israel.”
–“The operative difference in your mind being, it’s perfectly fine for Jews to wage ethnic cleansing, because you are a Zionist zealot. If a thief steals something from a victim, taking that item back and returning it to the victim is never theft itself.
–“…Zionists have literally spent over half a century antagonizing their neighbors in the region — both publicly and through black ops like bombing campaigns (both from plains and from intel squads that we are told in no way resemble terrorist cells), assassinations, and even overtly criminal enterprise (remember the supply line of the international organ trafficking operation that was exposed when all of those New Jersey rabbis were exposed for corruption a couple years ago? Can anyone name any rabbi among them who wasn’t a vocal Zionist? I’m not aware of any.”
–“Take a look at the Lavon affair. Zionists have a vested interest in artificially and directly creating animosity at Jews, in much the same way that Osama bin Laden thrives on creating animosity toward Muslims in Western countries to justify his fanatical zealotry. Fundamentally and functionally, there’s no difference between David Ben-Gurion and Osama bin Laden. They both have endorsed and provided the bankroll for terror in order to isolate and alienate the very people they falsely claim to be aiding (and in some cases, attacking those people directly and murderously), because they need people driven to them. Since no sane person would have anything to do with them under normal circumstances.”
The Ben-Gurion/Bin Laden comparison was especially tasteful and appropriate.
It never ceases to amaze me just how prone I am to misunderstanding the warmth and humanity that lies hidden in the words some people. I somehow erroneously gathered from these comments a hostility and contempt for the state of Israel. Sorry about that.
GF: “Do you deny hating Israel?”
Your emotional language is silly. Israel is not something to love or hate. It is an entity that is now engaged in carrying out inhumane, egregiously uncivilized policies towards people judged to be of the wrong ethnicity. Entities are not objects of adoration or loathing, except as a somewhat twisted psychology which manifests as overly emotional, un-natural attachment to inappropriate objects. I believe the psychologists may refer to the condition sometimes as “transference” or “emotional projection” which includes an element of narcisisstic self-attachment that is objectified as part of a defense mechanism meant to cover self-loathing.
I am not calling you a ‘self-hating goy-baiter” exactly. Rather, were I the therapist entrusted with dealing with your condition, GF, I’d paraphrase your question and ask: what’s there to love?
That’d make perhaps a good starting point. Though come to think of it, the therapy will take way too long. Perhaps some medication is in order?
Danaa, you gave me my first Sunday morning smile.
why don’t you offer a link robert, so people can examine your cherrypicking:
do you know the meaning of ‘taken together?’ why did you take it out? it sheds light on the meaning of:
We cannot accept a proposal that secures neither the establishment of a viable Palestinian state nor the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes.
iow, without a viable state of their own why would palestinians even consider giving up their ROR?
Viability of the state have absolutely nothing to do with all these objections.
Annie,
I did not “cherry pick,” I do know the meaning of “taken together,” and I did not “take it out.”
I did not do a comprehensive review of the Clinton Parameters in my response, and I certainly did not deny the myriad of other objections—er, “reservations” the Palestinians registered in their January 2, 2001 reply. I simply cited the Palestinian’s adamant, unequivocal rejection of the Parameters’ refugee proposal as an example. And even without all the other “reservations,” it was a deal breaker.
As to their other adamant, unequivocal rejections, well, let us be clear. The Parameters proposed the following:
(a) a Palestinian state on all of Gaza and 97% of the West Bank (phrased as an Israeli retention of 4-6% of the West Bank and a 1-3% land swap of Israeli land, with 97% thus the midpoint),
(b) a capital in East Jerusalem,
(c) a right of return to the new Palestinian state, and
(d) a massive international compensation fund.
I have already addressed point (c). Let’s listen to the objections to point (a):
“Ultimately, it is impossible to agree to a proposal that punishes Palestinians while rewarding Israel’s illegal settlement policies. A proposal involving annexation of 4 to 6 percent . . . of the land would inevitably damage vital Palestinian interests.”
Got that, Annie? The 3% of the West Bank that Israel (w/ land swaps) would retain is a non-starter because it would “punish Palestinians,” “reward Israel’s illegal settlement policies” and “inevitably damage vital Palestinian interests.”
I don’t know about you, but I’m failing to detect here a spirit of good faith and willingness to compromise. The Parameters were meant to serve as a basis for discussion. Yet even here, the Palestinians could not miss an opportunity to sound off about matters not even addressed in the proposal:
“The United States proposal remains silent on a number of issues that are essential for the establishment of a lasting and comprehensive peace. . . . Specifically, the proposal does not address water, compensation for damages resulting from over thirty years of occupation, the environment, future economic relations, and other state-to-state issues.”
The Palestinian response simply said no to all points (a)-(d) and even mischaracterized some of the things they were saying no to (i.e., “Cantons”? Please).
How many ways can someone say no?
robert, the israelis did not budge and inch and they were the ones who dropped out of the negotiations. you can spin it all you want, it’s bs. you’re so full of hasbarista speak you do not know which way the wind blows.
I did not “cherry pick,” I do know the meaning of “taken together,” and I did not “take it out.”
yeah, you did. as anyone reading your post can attest to. why don’t you link to the site you got your info? lets see what kind of revisionist sourcing you use.
GuiltyFeat,
You need to stop asking reasonable questions; it can get you into trouble here.
You asked: “Do you deny hating Israel?”
To which you were informed that your “emotional language” was “silly.”
Instead, try Danaa’s unemotional and unsilly response:
“[Israel] is an entity that is now engaged in carrying out inhumane, egregiously uncivilized policies towards people judged to be of the wrong ethnicity.”
And another thing…
“Entities are not objects of adoration or loathing, except as a somewhat twisted psychology which manifests as overly emotional, un-natural attachment to inappropriate objects. I believe the psychologists may refer to the condition sometimes as “transference” or “emotional projection” which includes an element of narcisisstic self-attachment that is objectified as part of a defense mechanism meant to cover self-loathing.”
And finally…
“Israel is not something to love or hate.”
But, on the other hand…
“what’s there to love?”
And, mind you, nothing personal here:
“I am not calling you a ‘self-hating goy-baiter” exactly.”
No, certainly not. It’s just that you need therapy and medication for failing to see that Israel is “an entity that is now engaged in carrying out inhumane, egregiously uncivilized policies towards people judged to be of the wrong ethnicity” and that your failure to see this indicates “the condition sometimes [referred to] as “transference” or “emotional projection” which includes an element of narcisisstic self-attachment that is objectified as part of a defense mechanism meant to cover self-loathing.”
Got that, GuiltyFeat?
hey bob, the whole hate lingo is ziospeak. bottom line is ascribing hate to ones adversaries is typical hasbara troll material. it’s a multi times a day accusation from zionists around here and you guys use constantly it whereas you rarely if ever claim one iota of hatred coming from the only source who really knows whether it is true or not..that being yourself. it’s stupid, redundant, boring, ineffective, and as worn out as an old whore.
it you want to talk about hatred talk about your own, otherwise no one will take your accusations seriously, promise.
Annie,
Your argument that I “cherry picked” essentially faults me for failing to inventory the entirety of the Palestinians’ objections ( a rather lengthy list, that) and further failing to offer an equally lengthy, comprehensive overview of the entire Parameters, even though the contents of the entire proposal were not even the subject of discussion, and I nowhere inferred that the ror was the only issue; I merely cited it as an example. I said the Palestinians rejected the Clinton Parameters, and they did.
It’s rather interesting, the trajectory this discussion on the Parameters has taken here. First there was Chaos4700′s denial that the Parameters had been rejected by the Palestinians. Then that denial became untenable when I quoted directly from the Palestinians’ own written response to them. Then you pointed out that there were other objections as well, something (again) I did not even deny in the first place. Now, far from denying there was a rejection of the Parameters by the Palestinians, you are now reduced to saying “the Israelis did not budge and inch and they were the ones who dropped out of the negotiations.”
“Did not budge an inch.” Are you serious? The Israelis accepted the Parameters. Did you miss that? The Israelis thus explicitly accepted the following:
A Palestinian state on all of Gaza and 97% of the West Bank (phrased as an Israeli retention of 4-6% of the West Bank and a 1-3% land swap of Israeli land, with 97% thus the midpoint), a capital in East Jerusalem, a right of return to the new Palestinian state, and a massive international compensation fund.
You call this not budging an inch? Please. And how far did the Palestinians move from their stated objections in the Parameters in the negotiations? The answer: not one inch. Nor have they to this day. They would not consider the Parameters even as a basis for discussion. What, then, was there to negotiate?
These continuing, feeble attempts to deny the Palestinians’ rejection of a sovereign, contiguous state in 2000/2001 and the horrific consequences that have resulted from it, continues to be a disgraceful endeavor requiring ever more lies and argumentative gymnastics. But facts are stubborn things.
Of course, Annie, neither you nor anyone else refuted a single word I wrote and instead, as usual, took refuge in the usual ideological name calling and, of course, that old stand-by “Zionist propaganda/Hasbarite/Troll” routine you guys fall back on when the facts and the evidence get too uncomfortable to bear. After all, why make an argument based on facts and evidence when you can just shout and pound the table instead?
.Please check out his debate on Democracy Now . Com with Norman Finklestein, and Shlomo Ben Ami. Ben Ami says he would have rejected Camp David if he were Palestinian and that Israel couldn’t accept the Clinton Parameters.
If this is such a great deal why does Israel not offer it again? If this is such a great deal why does Israel not accept an offer based on that revealed in the Palestine Papers which gives Israel everything it could possibly need for peace and security?
If this is such a great offer why did Israel continue to build the illegal settlements, the Separation Wall, the settler only roads, and thus effectively work to destroy the two state solution? Why did Israel not immediately freeze those borders, and thus preserve the possibility of keeping that agreement open?
< You call this an acceptance?! The answer explicitly rejected the alternative of compensation for the refugees and compensated resettlement elsewhere mentioned in the proposal, and could be summed up into two words: no deal. .
You are incorrect. Here is what the actual Palestinian response said.
'The Palestinians are prepared to think flexibly and creatively about the mechanisms for implementing the right of return. In many discussions with Israel, mechanisms for implementing this right in such a way so as to end the refugee status and refugee problem, as well as to otherwise accommodate Israeli concerns, have been identified and elaborated in some detail. The United States proposal fails to make reference to any of these advances and refers back to earlier Israeli negotiating positions.
In addition, the United States proposal fails to provide any assurance that refugee’ rights to restitution and compensation will be fulfilled.'
and
'The United States proposal reflects a wholesale adoption of the Israeli position that the implementation of the right of return be subject entirely to Israel’s discretion.'
link to nad-plo.org
The Palestinians were not demanding that all refugees be allowed to return to what would now be Israel, and the right of compensation had not been guaranteed. Did you seriously think that no would check your spin?
What the Palestinians actually said.
‘This proposal poses a number of serious problems. As the proposal is not accompanied by a map, and because the total area from which the percentages are calculated is not defined, it is difficult to imagine how the percentages presented can be reconciled with the goal of Palestinian contiguity. This is especially worrisome in light of the fact that the Israeli side continues to insist, and the United States has never questioned, that Jerusalem, as defined by Israel, the “no-man’s land”, and the Dead Sea are not part of the total area from which the percentages are calculated. Moreover, the United States proposal calls for the “swap of leased land”’
NO MAP?
link to nad-plo.org
So far the only civil war I have seen is among the Palestinians, Hamas vs. Fatah and we all know how that is going, If someone characterized all Palestinians as murderers according to the fact that one of them killed that Italian “activist” you would all have a fit, but it’s ok to label all settlers in that manner because of Baruch Goldstein and Yigal Amir.
In fact, Israel has shown on more than one occasion, despite difficulties, that they are willing to confront their own people in order to evacuate territory for peace. In the Sinai, it brought a cold peace with Egypt, In Gaza, it brought thousands of rockets at civilians. Show me what the Palestinians have done other than kill each other even after signing numerous cease fires and a peace agreement in their holy city of Mecca
oh spare us this drivel. the ‘war’ between fatah and hamas is instigated, funded and demanded by the colonizing powers, the US and israel. besides, it is not really between the two parties it is betwen the PA (US/IS agents and their militias ) and the elected representatives of the palestinian people. not all of fatah is at war w/hamas anyway. and hey, if the same thing happened and the rightwingers in israel were armed and funded to battle the forces to evict them from the settlements (and nobody is evicting them so that is a moot point) it very well could happen. but look what happened when that news happened last month anyway? everyone got distracted by the fogel murder.
oh, and don’t think you can slap a term like ‘the fact’ in front of an allegation of murder and make it true.
oh spare us this drivel.
Thanks, annie. And you too, Eva, for your smart comments.
It’s not a civil war if it was started by someone else.
LongliveIsrael,
You are wrong in assuming that evacuation of territories brought the rockets being fired in direction of Israel. You were meant to assume that, together with any other naive or ignorant observer.
Borders around the territories were clumped closed, ensuring that Gaza could not earn anything by export, and could only import or obtain, at severely inflated prices, what Israel deemed necessary. Travel to and from outside world became virtually impossible. The overflights and breaking of sound barrier kept population on edge. Incursions at will and missiles were terrorising the civilian population. No-fishing and no-farming zones were enlarged shrinking the territories. Unemployment soared.
Resultant partisan and resistance activity was a perfect example how well designed large scale social manipulation can produce both increase in radicalization of society, expressing itself in upsurge of para-military activity and embrace of religion by the population.
Your logic reminds me of a proof that beetles “hear” with their legs:
You put a beetle on a table, make the noise and it runs like hell – every time! But if you remove it’s legs – it stops running at the sound of noise!! offering perfect proof that beetles “hear” with it’s legs!!
“You are wrong in assuming that evacuation of territories brought the rockets being fired in direction of Israel. You were meant to assume that, together with any other naive or ignorant observer.”
Eva, I am Israeli, so spare us the ignorant and naive. You handful of anti-Israel activists know it all, we are all naive and ignorant.
Hamas has been targeting Israelis in Israel proper with terror way before they came into power, and in fact quite actively while the Oslo peace negotiations were taking place. We know exactly what intentions Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the rest of them have for us, borders or no borders.
Yup, partisan and resistance activity in restaurants, pizzerias, markets, buses, universities and Passover dinners.
Let’s look at the situation before Oslo allowed Arafat and his cronies to come in and attempt to build some kind of functioning Palestinian society. What happened, other than Arafat stealing huge sums of money from his people and creating a huge “security” apparatus? Before Arafat, Palestinians had jobs in Israel, their economy could work and sustain itself. Hamas was elected because finally, even Palestinians saw through Arafat and company. So, what does Hamas do? Why, align itself with the lunatics in Iran. That will surely help the Palestinians and bring peace to the region. Of course, we all know that Palestinians are free to voice their displeasure over Hamas at any time. We saw how Hamas neutralized the March 15th demos by starting up the rocket firing process again.
You pack pretty much every anti-Arab, anti-Palestinian and anti-Iranian canard (“Palestinians are incapable of institution building! Palestinians can’t do peace! Palestinians in no way are repeating Israeli precedents by bombing civilian infrastructure! Palestinians would be digging in the dirt without the economy of the Jewish state! Palestinians take their orders from Iran! Palestinian rockets provoked the Israeli air strikes that preceded them!”) and I’m supposed to be the anti-Semite?
You’re white, right? Polish, German and/or Russian, right? White as I am, I’m guessing?
Don’t waste your time, Chaos. It’s the Amygdala Army of Idiots. The Lizard Brain Brigade.
There’s not going to be an inter-Israeli Jewish civil war. The army will not split. Nor will any settlements be evacuated. Any order to evacuate the settlements will be met by a refusal of at least half the army, with the tacit agreement of the commanding rank.
There is no 2-state solution. The Israeli Right has seen to that.
The only reason Israel is pretending to be against a 2-state solution is because that’s the form international pressure against Israel is taking these days. Also it’s good for inner-Israeli propaganda.
Even if international recognition goes through, AIPAC will eventually agree to some form of arrangement with this new Palestinian “state” – that will keep all security arrangements in the hands of the Israeli regime. This will allow Israel the fig leaf of “solving” the conflict – allowing Palestinians a state – while maintaining Jewish superiority. ie. no democracy.
Rooting for a two-state solution (at this point in time) plays right into the hands of those who don’t want to see democracy for the people living in Israel/Palestine.
Arnon: Thanks for your comment. Let me be sure I’m right; you are an Israeli, presently living in Israel, right?
The only reason Israel is pretending to be against a 2-state solution is because that’s the form international pressure against Israel is taking these days.
i agree completely
Incidentally and totally off-topic, but: is your screen name supposed to be a humorous pseudonym? My German is sehr rusty but it can potentially be interpreted in a baudy light, at least from a certain vernacular that I’m familiar with. I’m not going to actually make the reference until I know for sure that isn’t, like, a real name and I wouldn’t be inadvertently making fun of it. :P
yeah. it’s a pseudonym – one I invented two decades ago whilst still in the army. Though I’ve peppered my comments with enough identifiable information to make the pseudonym superfluous for any security-minded folk. I do mean what I write.
Oh I didn’t doubt that, I just needed to know whether it was appropriate and harmless to find the screen name amusing the way I do. :)
Der Schwantz!
LOL (sorry)
Yes, indeed.
Thanks, Arnon. So now I can reassure GuiltyFeat, who at the beginning of this thread reproached me,
Clearly you don’t agree with GuiltyFeat, and you and I have now “spoken,” in cyberspace.
Sorry. But I’ve just read GuiltyFeat’s comments and I have to agree with his assessments (though perhaps not with his politics) – no settler will go to war with any other Israelis. And no Israeli will go to war with a settler. (Israeli being synonymous with Jewish in this context).
Any possible civil war will not be within the Jewish community. Violence will only occur against Arabs/Palestinians. Or if push comes to shove against a minority of “leftists” like me (though honestly I’m not too worried about that either).
We all know our parts in this game.
Sorry James, looks like you’re going to have to keep searching.
GF: Arnon’s analysis is cold comfort to anyone who hopes for a genuine 2-state settlement any time soon. He — like other informed Israeli and ex-Israeli commenters above — believes that the Israeli government has moved so close to the settler/colonists that it will never challenge them.
So there may be no civil war, but Arnon is saying that Israel will agree to no 2-state “solution” unless it leaves most of the 500,000 settler/colonists still in the West Bank portion of Palestine. Palestinians already feel they compromised enough in recognizing Israel behind the pre-1967 borders. The Second Intifada broke out in 2000 partly because Palestinians lost faith in their own negotiators, who were powerless to prevent the gigantic expansion of new Israeli colony/settlements.
Arnon’s prognosis is therefore for more years of delay and violence.
Yeah. Pretty much.
The second Intifada broken out solely because Yasser Arafat wanted more.
Ehud Barak who was Israel PM at the time have made most generous offer, but instead of peace solution he got Intifada and was kicked out of government.
P.S. Before second Intifada there were no security wall, Palestinians could rather easily get a permit to work in Israel, travel restriction was much softer etc. etc.
So basically they – Palestinians – are themselves responsible for quality of life worsening.
Obviously, negotiating for peace requires much more gray matter that throwing stones and exploding civilians.
The Palestine Papers show that it is Israel who will not discuss peace, the Palestinians have made the best offer that Israel will ever get. With an independent Palestine to be recognised in September, Israel has no one else to blame if it ends up with a worse deal.
yesspam
So you read and analyzed all 1700 documents and came to conclusion that Israel was failing peace process every time?
Excellent job.
Would you please be so kind and provide link to these documents online so I could educate myself?
Yeah, you’re right, oh bringer of light, Israeli negotiations for peace requires less gray matter and more throwing of US -gifted supersize weapons at the Palestinian people while simultaneously grabbing more Palestinian land. And yes, I fault the stupid American goys who are the enablers. I think they should wake up and realize that “the world to be” only refers to the future on earth, not some reward in “heaven,” and that when their Jesus jew kicked the establishment jews out of the temple, he was acting for both
Lightbringer’s enlightened jews and for the rest of us humans with mere animal souls.
Permit me to add a few observations to the discussion. While many are suggesting evicting the settler-occupiers through violent means, I think we should take into account why they are there in the first place. I am under the impression that most are illegally occupying Palestinian land basically because they have been bribed to do so. Most are simply opportunistically taking advantage of government subsidies to enjoy the good life on the cheap. Subsidies, I might add, which continue as we debate. Remove the subsidies, including overly generous water allotments and bypass roads and I would expect a significant settler-occupier exodus. Not that I expect this to happen. Treating the Palestinians as human beings with a legitimate claim to any part of Eretz Ysrael is an existential threat to Zionism. Finally, I don’t think we should get overly concerned about the details of a comprehensive solution, rather, we need to focus on improving the lives of the Palestinians now. End the siege of Gaza now! End the military administration of the West Bank now! Cease all new illegal construction now! And so forth.
“Finally, I don’t think we should get overly concerned about the details of a comprehensive solution, rather, we need to focus on improving the lives of the Palestinians now. End the siege of Gaza now! End the military administration of the West Bank now! Cease all new illegal construction now!”
Agreed. Keith your entire post is, in my opinion, the most realistic assessment of the situation I have read so far.
GF, now that’s a proper guilty assessment. Land theft is land theft.
These days, the Palestinians are eager to receive an official recognition of their future (but still improbable) state by the UN. The policy pursued with this tactic is clear: to force Israel to withdraw behind the Green Line without having to negotiate any compromise, neither about peace nor about the possible exchange of territories. In truth, what matters to the Palestinians (and I speak of so-called moderates like Abbas and company, forget the fanatics who rule Gaza) is not a peace that they do not want and can not guarantee, but the total transfer of “the territories ” by Israel – a claim for itself contrary to Resolution 242 which refers only to “territories” – to be allocated to their coveted Palestinian state.
However – as is their habit – they count their chickens before they’re hatched. Israel would be willing to cede territory in favor of a two-state solution – and would be able to convince own people as well as the majority of settlers – only and exclusively on the condition that true peace can be achieved with all neighbors, in the first place with the Palestinians. Now, a true peace that is worth that name, is only achieved on the road of peace negotiations, as was the case with Egypt and Jordan. Negotiations that the Palestinians (and only to talk about the so-called moderate) avoided like the plague – and will also in the future.
Therefore, the question posed by James is actually a non-starter or rather a false question, which would be much better directed at the pro-Palestinian supporters. It would be interesting to see what an uproar it would trigger among their ranks ;-)
It is your contention, then, as an Israeli, that the settlements are already officially Israeli territory?
Jon? Yoohoo? Are you reading jonah’s entry? I’d like to see you actually confront jonah. Put your money where your mouth is.
Zionists are like pretzel bakers. They twist plain language like that in UN res 242 into something that means the opposite.
So, dear anti-Zionist forger, read it with your own eyes:
Resolution 242 (1967)
of 22 November 1967
The Security Council,
Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,
Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,
Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,
1. Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:
(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;
Adopted unanimously at the 1382nd meeting.
2. Affirms further the necessity
(a) For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;
(b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;
(c) For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;
3. Requests the Secretary-General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;
4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.
Right. Meaning is totally clear.
Nobody gets to seize territory taken in war, and Israel has to get its armed forces out of the territory it occupied.
Only the pretzel bakers would try to claim anything else.
I’m confused. Can you delineate any Israeli armed forces that made their way onto territory during the 1967 war without engaging in armed conflict? It’s all well and good to say that there isn’t territory covered by this declaration (the difference between the partition plan and the 1948 armistice lines, arguably) but unless you can describe territory that the IDF managed to occupy by, I don’t know, a bake sale? Knocking politely and asking Palestinians or Syrians or Egyptians to kindly ethnically cleanse themselves? Putting up strands of garlic and expecting that to repel non-Jews? The point you are trying to make is self-defeating.
Describe any Israeli territory that Israel now occupies, that it acquired in 1967, that wasn’t acquired through force of arms.
You are wrong.
Just one example – Russia keeps city of Keningsberg (now Kaliningrad) taken from Germans during WWII
Duh? During WWII. The Fourth Geneva Conventions were enacted in 1949 — so arguably they don’t cover what Israel did in 1948, which is why I don’t reference the Geneva Convention when speaking about Israel’s seizing of land beyond its partition. The population transfers conducted by Israel violate the clause in the partition resolution about no population transfers resulting from establishing a nation on either partition. I have (and so does this UN resolution and the dozens of others that address this singular point of of many with regards to Israel’s literally atrocious behavior) only referenced Geneva Conventions violations for things Israel did after 1949. For instance, the 1967 land grab war Israel conducted, as above.
The devil in the details. Pun intended.
Lightbringer, he is right.
The Geneva conventions of 1949 were AFTER that deal — and others like it — to prevent those injustices ever again.
Israel ratified that agreement in 1951.
The US Government continues to reward Israel for this crime of occupation. As Great Britain learned in its 200+ year occupation of all of Ireland….as long as there is occupation, there will be security concerns.
Israel creates its own security problems. It could end tomorrow if Israel wanted it. But conflict pays the powerful and the sheep are brainwashed and cower in fear.
Could you please provide more information regarding “The population transfers conducted by Israel”
And also would you please explain why there is over 1 500 000 Arabs living in Israel.
I recommend “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine” by Ilan Pappe. That answers both non-question-marked questions.
That pretty much says it all. No need to read any further. You can’t keep it, now give it back, or swap it for something else. The onus therefore is on Israel to make a deal. The ’67 borders are the basis of the Palestinian state until they agree otherwise. That is why there is so much Zionist anger on here. They know that the situation is simple, hence all their attempts at spurious complication.
There is no such borders – ’67
“Green Line refers to the demarcation lines set out in the 1949 Armistice Agreements between Israel and its neighbours (Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria) after the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.”
“The 1949 Armistice Agreements are a set of agreements signed during 1949 between Israel and neighboring Egypt,[1] Lebanon,[2] Jordan,[3] and Syria.[4] The agreements ended the official hostilities of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, and established armistice lines between Israeli forces and the forces in Jordanian-held West Bank, also known as the Green Line.”
Sorry, but this “line” or “border” or whatever you’d call it, has nothing to do with “Palestinians”
JONAH- “The policy pursued with this tactic is clear: to force Israel to withdraw behind the Green Line without having to negotiate any compromise, neither about peace nor about the possible exchange of territories.”
You consider the Palestinian position that Israel abide by international law a scurrilous tactic? Without irony you quote resolution 242 to support your case? Lets take a look.
“Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war….”
“Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict….”
Seems clear to me. Get out of the occupied territories! As for a just and lasting peace, Israel, the regional hegemon, could have had that long ago if that is what they desired. But they don’t, do they? Zionism isn’t about secular concepts of laws and fairness, is it? No, Zionism is about the redemption of the Land of Israel, and the Palestinians mere impediments to be brushed aside. And you, Jonah, are a propagandist trying to camouflage Israel’s ongoing ethnic cleansing. Shame on you!
Check out the Zionist remarks about the Palestinians as rocks to be removed out of the way in this documentary.
link to topdocumentaryfilms.com
“but the total transfer of ‘the territories ‘ by Israel – a claim for itself contrary to Resolution 242 which refers only to ‘territories’ –”
Oh, not this bullshit again. Read the French; it contains the definite article.
The Resolution 242 was discussed and approved in its English version, not in the French traslation. In other words: withdrawal from “territories” (not necessarily “all territories”) on the basis of a negotiated peace. But, of course, the anti-Israel bigots don’t like the words “on the basis of a negotiated peace”, as point ii) in the Resolution implicitly (and in fact explicitly) states. That’s because, in their revanchistic fantasies, they don’t favor negotiations, but only surrender of the “Zionist entity” to their conditions. But it doesn’t work that way, buddies, you can not make bricks without straw.
, “on the basis of a negotiated peace”, as point ii) in the Resolution implicitly (and in fact explicitly) states. That’s because, in their revanchistic fantasies, they don’t favor negotiations, but only surrender of the “Zionist entity” to their conditions. >
Everyone (except those Zionists who want to push the Gazans into the sea, and the West Bank Palestinians into the desert, and take everything) wants a negotiated peace. The Palestine Papers show that Israel will not negotiate, so the Palestinians are forced into declaring their own state.
Isn’t it just as well that Palestinians have opportunity in September to ask international community in UN to clarify what they meant in resolution 242.
If they will get a vote to have a Palestinian State in 1967 boarders, then whole world will know it was “all territories” that were meant in resolution 242, english AND french version.
jonah
UNSC Res 242 was only between already existing states. It left Israel the occupying power over Palestinian territories. It did not change any borders, it did not call for borders to be negotiated.
link to wp.me
The waffle over ‘all’ and or ‘the’, merely delayed the resolution being passed.
BTW the words “on the basis of a negotiated peace” are not in the resolution. and; whatever may have been said before or after the final draft, does not change the final wording.
Your “implicitly (and in fact explicitly) states” is, to be polite …. bullsh*te!
JONAH- “But, of course, the anti-Israel bigots don’t like the words “on the basis of a negotiated peace”, as point ii) in the Resolution implicitly (and in fact explicitly) states.”
Apparently, you have a problem with reading comprehension. Nowhere do I find the wording that states that “Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict” is to be contingent upon a negotiated peace. Such a contingency would be ludicrous insofar as it would enable the occuppier to avoid the prohibition against “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war” simply by avoiding a negotiated peace. True, Israel has refused to negotiate a just and lasting peace, however, “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war” still stands, your Hasbara distortions notwithstanding.
Jonah, there is nothing about a “quid pro quo” in the resolution. Nothing about “negotiations” in which Palestinians have to pay extortion in order that Israel should leave the occupied territory. The principle is simple: the land doesn’t belong to Israel, Israel has to get the hell off it.
Don’t be an idiot. The French isn’t “translation,” it is an integral part of the resolution. And it is no less authoritative than the English. So it doesn’t matter what kind of games the Zionist entity and its puppets tried play, the resolution, as passed, requires a withdrawal from the territories. And everyone except the Judeo-fascists knows that. (I suspect that the Zios know it too, but they play dumb to give cover to their crime and inhumanity a they continue to squat all over Palestine.)
The UN Resolution 242 is in fact clear but not in the way you try to infer.
Firstly: Israel acquired the territories in a self defence war and had (still has) the right to keep them unter its control as long as the security of its citizens is threaten by continued Palestinian terrorism and armed aggression (as demonstrated by the the last attacks in Itamar and Jerusalem and by the indiscriminate lauching of rockets and mortar shells from Gaza).
Secondly: You deprive intentionally Resolution 242 of its full meaning. Both central paragraph i) and ii) are complementary and should be read together. As long as the Palestinian are not able nor willing to renounce violence and to officially recognize Israel as neighbor (neither Fatah nor Hamas did it so far, read their current Charters), thus accepting point ii) of the resolution and starting serious negotiations which will lead to a lasting peace, there is no obligation for Israel to implement any request of unilateral withdrawal. A declaration of statehood by the Palestinians in the West Bank will not change this reality, it will simply demonstrate once more their own incompatibility with the idea of peace, confirming their hostile attitude toward Israel. Thus, resolution 242 will surely not be implemented by such unilateral move, it will rather nullify the peace process and widen the gap between the two peoples. Israel in turn will take steps to deal with the new but in fact still hostile Palestinian entity, and certainly not in the sense intended by those who want its unconditional surrender.
But don’t bother, keep believing in your wet revanchistic dreams …
As usual, you Zios are wrong on the facts, wrong on the law and are too stubborn to recognize that the resolution says what it says. And just because the Americans were too stupid to keep you blood sucking parasites from infesting their political system, doesn’t mean the rest off the world doesn’t see the true nature of the cancer you Zionists have inflicted on the world.
You can’t engage on “self defense” WHEN YOU ARE ON SOMEONE ELSE’S LAND. No armed robber would be able to claim self defense for murdering the homeowner who came after him with a gun.
As far as if it were self defense at all, per Moshe Dayan:
If you act like Nazis on the West Bank, jonah, you will be treated like Nazis by the rest of the world. Remember that.
Jonah – you are wrong on every point.
Firstly, Israel acquired these territories in an aggressive war. And nothing in 242 gives Israel any right whatsoever to keep them under its control depending on what the Palestinians do [which is called "armed resistance", not "aggression."]
Secondly – it is fantastic to see how Israelis read so much into a text that just isn’t there in the words as they are written. Nothing whatsoever of what you claim is there. 242 does not apply in any way whatsoever to the Palestinians. The conflict was between Israel and Jordan. Israel and Jordan signed a peace agreement. From that moment, any Israeli presence on the West Bank is a violation of 242.
It’s a simple as that.
Yrong, wrong, wrong: this is all you can say, woodytanaka – besides the usual anti-Semitic regurgitations. Your hatred is pathetic.
“Noun verb anti-Semite.” We prove the willfully ignorant Israeli wrong and he starts frothing at the mouth with random insults. I’d say Avigdor Lieberman was the PERFECT choice for Israel’s foreign minister.
Jonah,
What you say about the Palestinians’ intransigence and devious attempts to obtain a state outside of negotiation and diplomacy is absolutely right. In May of 2009 Abbas told the Washington Post that he had every intention of just hanging back and watching Obama squeeze Israel for concessions. He apparently felt that he had made enough of his own. Just what those have been I don’t know. Do you?
Everything you say about Res. 242 is also correct. You might also have pointed out that Res. 242 is a Chapter VI resolution and is not legally binding. The comments by potsherd2, chaos4700, and Keith reveal a depressingly familiar habit on this blog: interpreting “international law” as whatever they happen to agree with.
Said potsherd2 of Res. 242: “Right. Meaning is totally clear.
Nobody gets to seize territory taken in war, and Israel has to get its armed forces out of the territory it occupied.”
Said Keith: “Seems clear to me. Get out of the occupied territories! As for a just and lasting peace, Israel, the regional hegemon, could have had that long ago if that is what they desired. But they don’t, do they? Zionism isn’t about secular concepts of laws and fairness, is it? No, Zionism is about the redemption of the Land of Israel, and the Palestinians mere impediments to be brushed aside. And you, Jonah, are a propagandist trying to camouflage Israel’s ongoing ethnic cleansing. Shame on you!”
Got that, Jonah?
They’ll take the “Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war” but not “the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security.”
They’ll take “(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;” but not “(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.”
These biased, and selectively self-serving interpretations of Res. 242 stem from a false premise: that the 1967 War was an Israeli war of aggression against the Arabs (or, an Israeli “land grab” as chaos4700 put it).
By reading the above comments by potsherd2, Keith, chaos4700 and others, you would think that these Arab countries in 1967 were just sitting pretty, peacefully going about their business with nary a thought about war or blotting Israel from the map or and massacring its people when–wham! the Israelis fell on them in a dastardly surprise attack and stole their land from them.
Such is history as it is understood on the lunatic left. Israel’s 1957 evacuation of the Sinai and the Gaza Strip, occupied in the 1956 war, was contingent upon the UN’s guarantee of the demilitarization of the Sinai and Gaza, the international status of the Gulf of Aqaba and the Straits of Tiran, and the inviolability of Israel’s maritime rights there. It further stipulated that any breach of these guarantees by Egypt would constitute an act of war, and that Israel would invoke its rights under Article 51 to defend itself. Nasser’s May 1967 ejection of the UNEF, his remilitarization of the Sinai and Gaza, and his blockade of the Tiran Straits were thus acts of lawlessness and a blatant act of war. Even he made no bones about that. He called the UNEF “a force serving neo-imperialism” and ordered their removal on May 16. Three days later they complied and that evening Cairo Radio blared: “This is our chance, oh Arabs, to deal Israel a mortal blow of annihilation.” Nasser said in a speech to a convention of Arab trade unionists on May 27:
“We knew that closing the Gulf of Aqaba meant war with Israel. If war comes it will be total and the objective will be Israel’s destruction. This is Arab power.”
When UN Secretary General U Thant met with Nasser to urge him to reconsider his actions, Nasser told him:
“We will never be in a better position than now. Our forces are well equipped and trained. We will have all the advantages of attacking first. We are sure of victory. My generals told me we will win—what would you say to them?”
As with Saddam Hussein and the 17 un-enforced UNSC resolutions condemning his non-compliance with inspections three decades later, the UN did absolutely nothing about Nasser’s open defiance of international law and his brazen advertising of his intentions to commit an act of unlawful aggression, save complaining aloud about his “unfortunate” and “unhelpful” behavior. Not for the last time, Israel had been completely flimflammed by the UN for accepting its assurances about its security, and utterly abandoned to its fate. On May 30 King Hussein of Jordan signed a military pact with Nasser in Cairo. The same day Iraqi forces took up positions in Jordan. Said President Aref of Iraq on May 31: “Our goal is clear: to wipe Israel off the map.” He added: “There will be no Jewish survivors.” Said Ahmed Shukairy, chairman of the PLO on June 1: “The Jews of Palestine will have to leave…Any of the old Jewish Palestine population who survive may stay, but it is my impression that none of them will survive.” Said Damascus Radio: “Arab masses, this is your day. Rush to the battlefield…Let them know that we shall hang the last imperialist soldier with the entrails of the last Zionist.” Said Hafez al-Assad to his troops in a frightening hint of what he would do to 20,000 of his own people 15 years later in Hama: “Strike the enemy’s [civilian] settlements, turn them into dust, and pave the Arab roads with the skulls of Jews. Strike them without mercy.” Seeing the forces now massing along their borders, and feeling the noose tightening around their necks in the face of a pending Arab offensive, Israel launched a pre-emptive strike on June 5, and not a moment too soon.
As to whether Israel’s presence in the West Bank is “illegal,” this is rather doubtful. The Jordanians annexed the West Bank in 1948 as part of Jordan and, in the 19 years that they occupied it, made absolutely no attempt to create a Palestinian state, and it is here that we can see the blatant hypocrisy behind the whole spurious Israel-as-occupier/oppressor narrative. Notice that no one had ever excoriated Egypt and Jordan for “occupying” Palestinian land and denying the Palestinians a state in the 1948-1967 period, though this is exactly what they did, sometimes with exceptional violence and brutality. King Abdullah even went so far as to forbid the use of the term”Palestinian” on Jordanian legal documents. Where was all that talk about “violations of international law,” “oppression,” and “illegal occupation?” Apparently, all of these things only happen when the occupiers are Jews.
Either both the Egypt/Jordan and the Israeli occupations were illegal or neither were. The truth is neither were because the final borders demarcating Israel and Palestine are still unsettled. They have been since 1948. The borders that the Israelis won in 1948 were armistice lines, not those of an established peace treaty. The Arab states themselves, armed and allied with a powerful oil weapon and a comfortable majority in the UN General Assembly, only insisted on an independent Palestine in the early 1970′s and never before. There has never been an independent Palestine; the West Bank was thus “legally” part of Jordan until 1967 and Jordan has renounced any claim to the territory. Therefore, any presence in the West Bank, whether Arab or Israeli, is, at best, legally dubious since “Palestine” is not and never has been, a sovereign, independent entity, and therefore cannot be “illegally” occupied like, say, Saddam did in Kuwait in 1990. This is underscored in UNSC Resolution 242 which stipulates that the final, legal borders will therefore be determined by the parties in a mutually agreed peace “within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.” That is, when the Palestinians finally decide to say “yes” to a state, and reconcile themselves to Israel’s existence.
LOL. Anti-Zionism is not antisemitism except to dimwits like you.
It’s NOT the land of the Arab or Palestinians (as they name themselves after 1964), it never was! Read some good history books, Chaos. The solution can only be political, that means it can only be a compromise, based on a negotiated peace treaty.
Besides: Why resort to the old Nazi-killer-argument? You feel better ranting in this way?
What you say about the Palestinians’ intransigence and devious attempts to obtain a state outside of negotiation and diplomacy is absolutely right.
TOTALLY unlike how Israel seized five hundred villages worth of land in 1948 and engineered the forced displacement of half of Palestine’s original population, right? Or how Israel conquered the Golan Heights? Gaza? The West Bank, that was negotiated?
Witty, is this anti-Semitic? Am I an anti-Semite for typing this?
Could you please explain why Israelis expelled only half of Palestine population?
So the Holocaust is nothing more than a “rant” to you, jonah? Cute.
Thank you very much, Robert. You’ve expressed my concepts through very eloquent and absolutely correct actual arguments. And your answer should be specifically addressed to potsherd 2, who again repeats the misleading and false legend of the Israeli war of aggression. The truth is that Nasser and his Arab allies were about to launch a war of extermination, as your quotes show eloquently.
The Israel-hating forgers will never admit it.
Could you please explain why Israelis expelled any of Palestine’s original population?
Funny how all of the extermination that happened was Jewish immigrant militants destroying HUNDREDS of existing Palestinian villages, but we’re supposed to believe it’s “the Arabs” who were genocidal.
Jonah, in fact Palestinian identity predates 1964. I refer you to Y. Porath’s “Emergence of the Palestinian -Arab National Movement (1918-1929).
Yeah, Eva, that seems logical. Get ready for the Zionist spin. You won’t even know if it’s an apple or orange they are talking about.
The way you misuse the word “holocaust” says actully pretty much about your own dishonest mind-set, chaos. You are in fact showing us your great ignorance on the subject. I hope you are not representative of the pro-Palestinian activists (and the Palestinians themselves), but you bring up their case very bad.
ROBERT WERDINE- What have we here? Apparently, Phil and Adam have decided to let a right-wing extremist lie, distort and fabricate to his heart’s content. I was originally going to attempt a response to your fusillade of B.S. but did a quick web search were I came across your comments on Hardblogger. Among other insanities, you maintain that the US was in Viet Nam to protect the Vietnamese from North Vietnamese aggression (empire? what empire?), and that the Palestinians fled Palestine in 1948 due to Arab radio broadcasts, avoiding the fighting, and a breakdown in services. You insist that “They were not expelled en mass, driven from their homes, or ethnically cleansed ….” (Deir Yassin? Some minor misunderstanding?). Your comments on Hardblogger (and to a degree here) are so far over the top you make Rush Limbaugh seem like a flaming liberal.
As far as I am concerned, you have zero intellectual integrity, and I am not going to waste anymore time with you.
link to hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com
Chaos4700,
For some time now, I have been observing the commentary by you and others on this blog with no small degree of bewilderment, irritation, and even amazement. I have read, while sometimes slack-jawed, at the use of incendiary terms like “illegal,” “apartheid,” “racism,” “massacre,” and “genocide.” I believe, on this blog and elsewhere, that the use of these terms to describe the actions of the Israelis in any number of contentious incidents ( the 1948 War and refugee crisis, The 1967 War, the 1967 USS Liberty attack, which many deranged anti-Israel critics still believe to be deliberate, the 2008-2009 Gaza war, the 2010 Mavi Marma incident etc.) are not only grossly inaccurate and unwarranted, but can be seen as betraying a blind, virulent and unbalanced hatred of Israel. This use of exaggerated and inflammatory rhetoric bears all the hallmarks of propaganda, not reasoned argument.
Your characterization of the 1948 War in terms of Israeli “genocide,” “ethnic cleansing,” and “aggression” further reveal your irrational hatred, your shaky grasp of facts, and worm’s eye view of history.
For over 60 years, the Palestinians have been used and abused as pawns in the struggle between Israel and the Arabs, or, rather, in the monomaniacal, decades long attempt of the Arabs to destroy Israel. Let us not forget (again): the entire refugee problem was created by the Arab’s rejection of the 1947 partition, their bungled attempt to destroy Israel in 1948, and has been perpetuated by them ever since. If the Arabs had compromised and accepted the creation of a Palestinian state in 1947, there would have been no war and no refugee crisis and everybody knows it. As the overwhelming array of evidence and testimony make clear, most Palestinians fled for three main reasons: to avoid being killed in the fighting, because of the breakdown in administration and services, and because of panicked Arab propaganda urging them to flee for their lives after the Dier Yassin massacre, an indisputable atrocity committed by the Stern/Irgun terrorists. Even Benny Morris has asserted that “there was no Zionist policy to expel the Arabs or intimidate them into flight” though the Stern/Irgun were hardly distressed that they fled. Morris adds: “there was no blanket policy of expulsion.”
They were not ethnically cleansed; indeed, the pleas of the Jews of Haifa begging the Arabs there not to flee make heartbreaking reading. After Deir Yassin Ben Gurion, whom you previously compared to Osama bin Ladin, sent a letter of apology to King Abdullah of Jordan, and dissolved and disarmed by force, the Stern and Irgun terrorists.
For the Arabs, however, it was to be a war of extermination.
Said the Grand Mufti: “murder the Jews. Murder them all.”
Said Ahlman Azzah Pasha, the Arab League’s Secretary General: “This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre, which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.”
Said Ahmed Shukairy, then the Mufti’s spokesman: the war would result in “the elimination of the Jewish State…it does not matter how many Jews there are. We will sweep them into the sea.”
After the war, the inhabitants and refugees in the West Bank were annexed into the state of Jordan, those in Gaza were subject to occupation by Egypt and the rest were put into refugee camps in Syria and Lebanon where they enjoy none of the rights of the local population and have been forced to live in appalling conditions there to this day. An agreement that would repatriate 100,000 of the refugees into Israel was rejected by the Arabs in 1950. At the same time, some 800,000 Jews were expelled from Arab countries; all were resettled in Israel.
800,000 Jews expelled. How about that for ethnic cleansing?
But more importantly, why then were the Palestinians kept in the camps and not similarly assimilated among the inhabitants of Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, or any other Arab country as they were in Jordan? The cultural and linguistic differences between Palestinian Arabs and those of Lebanon and Syria are about the same as those between Americans living in Delaware and those living in Maryland and New Jersey. So why were they not resettled and assimilated? Do you think it was because the refugees chose not to be? No; it was because the refugees were kept by their Arab brethren in camps as human title-deeds to a reconquest of Palestine that they promised but ultimately failed to bring about. Does it not occur to you what a brutal act of inhumanity this was, and is? What possible responsibility could Israel have had for any of this? Have they forced the Arabs to keep the refugees in their wretched camps against their will to this day?
What is contemptible to me is how people like you twist every Israeli attempt at self defense, which attempts to minimize civilian deaths, into crimes against Palestinians and ignore the brutal atrocities deliberately committed against them by Arafat and Hamas, as well as by the Syrians and Hezbollah and other Arab countries. Does it occur to any of you the role that the Arabs’ indifference, intransigence and brutality has and continues to play in their sufferings? No; you only weep and rant when you think Israel is the culprit. I doubt you lose much sleep over the atrocities of Hamas or the human-rights abuses of the PA or the consequences of their refusal to negotiate and make peace. How grotesquely hypocritical.
So please, spare us your hypocrisy and your ugly, spurious talk of “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing” and “aggression.” You simply do not know what you are talking about, and are either unable or unwilling to see anything beyond your bias and your hatred of Israel. That much is obvious.
Shorter Robert Werdine:
“I don’t understand why you can’t just believe my propaganda and lies rather than the story told by dirty Arabs…”
“Your characterization of the 1948 War in terms of Israeli “genocide,” “ethnic cleansing,” and “aggression”….”
Genocide is wrong, in my opinion. “Ethnic cleansing” is accurate and Benny Morris, Meron Benvenistis and other Israelis agree (Morris also thinks it was justified, but that’s his little ethical problem.) And apartheid is also reasonably accurate.
The rest of your post was simply funny in a retro kind of way. If you’d stuck to complaining that people sometimes use overheated rhetoric here you’d have a good case (“genocide” being a good example). But you had to fall back on 60′s era hasbara. Good luck with that.
Robert Werdine,
Perhaps if you are bewildered, you should try to remain quiet, and stick to observation. You might actually learn a little actual history from your betters, rather than the biblical mambo-jumbo, and make-up history you’ve been fed..
personally, I have no interest whatsoever to get into argumentation with zio-bots, since cult members are notoriously difficult to de-program, unless, like other addicts, they want to be. other people here, like Chaos, MRW. Eva, Tanaka and others do a bang-up job of it, and have all the material to prove their case.
I’ll just ask you one thing: suppose even that palestinian fled the war of ’48; most tried to return within weeks, days and months. They were not allowed. Their houses and property were confiscated through no fault of their own. The resident, natives did not even participate in much of fighting – they were simple farmers. I grew up on stories of those scary frightening
“Fedayeen”, ready to kill – armed to the teeth. Later, much later, only after I escaped that cult, did I find that those scary night raiders, were simple farmer who tried to return to their land, only to be mawed down by the brave soldiers of the plucky little Israel. One of those old Arab farm villages, and the houses and fields that stood there became part of a moshav not too far from my own town. Little did I know that they who became moshavnicks, were given houses and lands stolen from rightful owners. It feels funny now to know that we were, for the most part, not much better than bandits and marauders. Of course, kids knew nothing of the truth. We learnt only that they [goys in general] were mean to us in Poland, Hungary, Russia and Germany, and that’s why we get to take revenge on the Arabs.
You, Robery Werdine, know nothing of Israel, what it was, and what it came to be. At least some zio-bots accept what they are as – the way of the jungle. You have constructed an alternate tale, full of sound and fury, told by an idiot, signifying nothing.
…the entire refugee problem was created by the Arab’s rejection of the 1947 partition, their bungled attempt to destroy Israel in 1948, and has been perpetuated by them ever since. If the Arabs had compromised and accepted the creation of a Palestinian state in 1947, there would have been no war and no refugee crisis and everybody knows it. As the overwhelming array of evidence and testimony make clear, most Palestinians fled for three main reasons: to avoid being killed in the fighting, because of the breakdown in administration and services, and because of panicked Arab propaganda urging them to flee for their lives after the Dier Yassin massacre, an indisputable atrocity committed by the Stern/Irgun terrorists. Even Benny Morris has asserted that “there was no Zionist policy to expel the Arabs or intimidate them into flight” though the Stern/Irgun were hardly distressed that they fled. Morris adds: “there was no blanket policy of expulsion.”
Sorry sir, but the historical record does not support your version of history.
Plan Dalet revisited
The Fall of Haifa Revisited
Looting, looting, and more looting
The Saga of Deir Yassin
1948: The Myth of the Voluntary Exodus
The Palestinian Exodus of 1948 – Critical Review of all the evidence
Erskine Childers: The Other Exodus
It seems you need a history refresher.
Werdine should have stayed quiet. He is a Godsend for proving how crazy and racist Israeli supporters are. I usually have to needle people like jon or hophmi a bit before they show their true colors. This guy and Lightbringer though are touching every Islamophobic trope in the hasbara handbook without prompting.
I have to imagine there are American Jewish youths reading all of this who are absolutely horrified. Yes kids, this is what they want you to be after your Birthright tour!
I know, Chaos. I love it when they disrobe and start stroking their rods of knowledge here thinking we’ve never seen them before.
____________________
[But they always start out their charade, their masquerade with the bruised and feigned indignity of the permanent victim. "How could you. . . .?" "Do you really believe. . . .?" "I can't believe you think. . . ." Then the palm comes off the forehead and heads south.]
Danaa
“I’ll just ask you one thing: suppose even that palestinian fled the war of ’48; most tried to return within weeks, days and months. They were not allowed.”
Of course they were not allowed.
Remember, about a year before that they rejected Partition Plan and have called for Arab armies to help them get rid of Jews.
So basically they were enemy, and were treat as such.
Jonah the pretzel baker somehow believes that when Israel conducted sneak attacks against Arab forces and destroyed their airfields this was somehow not an act of aggressive war.
“The truth is” that it is long been admitted by Israeli military historians that Nasser had no intention of launching any war, of extermination or otherwise. This is another of those very simple things that Israeli apologists just can’t wrap their minds around – the side that attacks first is the aggressor.
So basically they were enemy, and were treat as such.
Another commenter in need of a history lesson. Here a starting point:
Apologies for the lengthy excerpt.
In case you didn’t make it through that long passage I posted, I’m pulling out this one Ben-Gurion quote to highlight it:
That’s Zionism, and today’s Israel, in a very precise, perfect little nutshell. Perpetual war so what’s “ours” can be perpetually expanded, and what’s “not ours” can be perpetually reduced, under the cover of war.
Once you figure it out, it’s so obvious and simple.
Plan Dalet revisited – file is missing
The Fall of Haifa Revisited – document contains false statement which diminishes it’s value to zero:
1 – Zionist claim that Arab population evacuated in anticipation of Arab armies invasion is *entirely* without foundation.
hmmmm
lets see…
“Time’s report of the battle for Haifa (May 3, 1948) was similar: “The mass evacuation, prompted partly by fear, partly by orders of Arab leaders, left the Arab quarter of Haifa a ghost city… By withdrawing Arab workers their leaders hoped to paralyze Haifa.”
“The tragedy of the Palestinians was that most of their leaders had paralyzed them with false and unsubstantiated promises that they were not alone; that 80 million Arabs and 400 million Muslims would instantly and miraculously come to their rescue (Yehoshofat Harkabi, Arab Attitudes To Israel, Jerusalem: Israel Universities Press, 1972, p. 364).
link to jewishfederations.org
But Jewish documents can’t be trusted can they?
Let’s check further.
“The mass evacuation, prompted partly by fear, partly by orders of Arab leaders, left the Arab quarter of Haifa a ghost city. More than pride and defiance was behind . the Arab orders. By withdrawing Arab workers, their leaders hoped to paralyze Haifa. Jewish leaders said wishfully: “They’ll be back in a few days. Already some are returning.”
link to time.com
It seems you need to read something else besides article prepared by pathological liars.
It is obvious and simple.
link to jewishvirtuallibrary.org
totally unbiased source of course./snark
bijou, wiki has this quote and attributes it to palestinians but when you go to the source it claims benny morris and after digging for the passage i found wiki used quote marks benny never used. it was his own terminology. zio editors on wiki.
It seems you need to read something else besides article prepared by pathological liars.
Oh my gosh, are you really arguing with me at that level? That Time Magazine is a more reliable source than the work of numerous of the most esteemed historians on this area? That would be laughable if it weren’t so pathetic.
Obviously Time was simply regurgitating the propaganda du jour.
so in addition to clearly being anti arab your anti american as well. the Israelis shot down the ensign of the liberty twice. anyone wityh a brain could see it was deliberate unless your going to continue to push the idea that the alleged best trained army in the owrld’s pilots and naval personal were too stupid to tell the difference between the american naval ensign and those of the surrounding countries which should be noted look nothing alike and only share one color
And you have no right to call esteemed historians “pathological liars.” That is a bigoted slur.
There’s also this excellent article by William Cook:
“by William A. Cook
The Untold Story of the Zionist intent to turn Palestine into a Jewish State
(Based on classified documents from the Jewish Agency and its affiliated organizations seized by the British Mandate Police, materials that confirm that the Zionist controlled Jewish community intended to remove the Arab inhabitants of Palestine from their land and make the whole of Mandate Palestine a Jewish State, an intent that continues to the present day as the new book, The Plight of the Palestinians: a Long History of Destruction, available at Macmillan.com, demonstrates.)”
Lightbringer
(1) you are not reading any of the links people are giving you.
(2) If you had, you would realize that the Arab leaders were issuing fines and other restraints to get the Palestinians to stay in advance of the Arab army showing up on May 15th.
You’re a Lightweight, not a Lightbringer. Go play at Witty’s blog.
Annie , I think you should check out Benny Morris’ “The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited (2004)”, which is an update of his earlier research. It includes a meticulous ,detailed, account , including the circumstances of the evacuation of every single village.
Here’s your May 3rd, 1948 TIME article’s summary introduction, oh bringer of light:
“While U.N. talked, the Jews were carving Palestine with a sword. In a whirlwind week they seized Haifa, attacked Jaffa, won Tiberias on the Sea of Galilee and tried to cut the Arab supply road into Jerusalem. For the first time since the Romans leveled Jerusalem 1,800 years ago, a Jewish army ate Passover matzoth and bitter herbs around campfires in the field. Said Jewish Agency Chairman David Ben-Gurion: “We stand on the eve of the Jewish State . . . heartened by the victories of our army . . . We have just begun to buckle on the sword.”
I’d deduce from that introductory passage that fear of the Jewish sword prompted the poor Arabs to leave their homes.
The TIME’s article goes on to dwell on Haifa, which the article describes as ” The Jews’ most dazzling military prize of the week was Haifa, the only port where seagoing ships can dock.” The passage you quote about the mixed elements prompting the Arabs to leave applies only to Haifa.
Harkabi’s notion to be found in his 1972 book published by an Israeli university press, at online at the Jewish Federation web site? Heh.
Bijou’s comments bring way more light than you, Lightbringer. My guess is that’s because he doesn’t use Zionist batteries.
Plan Dalet Revisited is a PDF that doesn’t seem to want to behave as a link, sorry. Google “Plan Dalet Revisited” by Walid Khalidi, Journal of Palestine Studies. It is a very very important article.
Text of Plan Dalet translated here
How come that no one has ever produced a single second from one of these alleged broadcasts. This is a Zionist myth. What is true is that after the massacre at Dier Yassin, Israeli broadcast vans went around repeating details of the massacre, and saying leave now or this will happen to you.
Liar is liar.
Be it historian or beggar of politician.
bijou ~ sometimes the MW software that handles links does strange things if it contains particular unusual characters.
Anyone interested to read the Khalidi piece can use this link instead, clicking on the first search result returned for the PDF bijou is trying to link to.
Thank you Sumud!
And here is a reference for the other PDF that I tried to link to above which didn’t succeed either:
Glazer, Steven A. “The Palestinian Exodus in 1948.” The Journal of Palestine Studies, Volume 9, No. 4, Summer 1980. 96-118.
This is a historical review. You can google it and retrieve the PDF.
“The passage you quote about the mixed elements prompting the Arabs to leave applies only to Haifa.”
That is no more than your personal opinion ill-based and undocumented.
Here, check this one.
A leading Palestinian nationalist of the time, Musa Alami, revealed the attitude of the fleeing Arabs:
“The Arabs of Palestine left their homes, were scattered, and lost everything. But there remained one solid hope: The Arab armies were on the eve of their entry into Palestine to save the country and return things to their normal course, punish the aggressor, and throw oppressive Zionism with its dreams and dangers into the sea. On May 14, 1948, crowds of Arabs stood by the roads leading to the frontiers of Palestine, enthusiastically welcoming the advancing armies. Days and weeks passed, sufficient to accomplish the sacred mission, but the Arab armies did not save the country. They did nothing but let slip from their hands Acre, Sarafand, Lydda, Ramleh, Nazareth, most of the south and the rest of the north. Then hope fled (Middle East Journal, October 1949).”
link to jewishvirtuallibrary.org
Although I was not able to find copy of that journal on-line, I also have not seen pro-Palestinian historians denying it’s authenticity.
I guess I’ll just to have check all facts and myths personally.
1 – reading quite a lot
2 – none of these so-called “historian” ever provided even one single piece of evidence. No cross-reference to any available source, no names or dates.
Israel supporters however do provide at least some proof.
link to jewishvirtuallibrary.org
pjdude,
Ah, the lie that will not die.
Your assertion that the USS Liberty was deliberately attacked by Israel is false and you know it, and so does everyone here, whether they admit it or not.
Anyone wishing to see if the TIME article Lightbringer quoted above and I commented on reveals what he says it does should scroll up and click on the link to it. I’m confident you will find out yourself who mischaracterized the article, me or the bringer of light.
The attack on the USS Liberty by Israeli air forces is covered in detail, including on web sites devoted to that singular event, the only attack on US military in US history of such nature that never received a full congressional investigation, and the only one covered up by the US MSM to this day, except for a belated objective coverage in the Chicago Tribune, which was never picked up by the rest of the MSM. The surviving crew were sworn to secrecy for years. The consensus of the knowledgable community is that Israel deliberately attacked the US intelligence-gathering ship. The “accident” scenarios Israel and Israel Firsters suggest are very weak once you’ve learned all the facts available today online. Robert Werdine’s comment on the USS Liberty incident shows
just how blind he wishes us all to be, and he insults us all by his comment.
yesspam
Probably because at the time recording devices were scarce, large and extremely expensive.
What’s interesting, pro-Palestinian researchers haven’t produced even single second of broadcast telling Arabs to stay put.
because that’s just plain stupid. no decent person would ever have the audicity to make the demand that civilians stay in a war zone.
This is laughable.
I see. You have nothing to respond and just laughing to hide your confusion.
Good.
pjdude
link to palestine-studies.org
Page 6
Don’t kid yourself Lightweight.
Every single argument you’ve made is nothing new to regulars here. I don’t have the patience to go through my books to refute your nonsense.
Ever since Gaza 08, there has been a steady stream of hasbarists putting forth redundant arguments and it’s pointless to debate them all.
Try talknic, or Nima Shirazi. They might have the patience to deal with your cookie-cutter talking points for the umpteenth time.
Cliff
New arguments or not, I do not know nor do I care.
As of your lack of patience – you really do not have to answer.
Just stay quite and everything will be just fine. I promise.
Citizen,
Yesterday you wrote on the USS Liberty attack:
“The consensus of the knowledgeable community is that Israel deliberately attacked the US intelligence-gathering ship. The “accident” scenarios Israel and Israel Firsters suggest are very weak once you’ve learned all the facts available today online. Robert Werdine’s comment on the USS Liberty incident shows
just how blind he wishes us all to be, and he insults us all by his comment.”
Well now we’ll just see about that, won’t we?
On June 8, 1967, on the fourth day of the Six-Day War between Israel and the Arabs, the USS Liberty, an American intelligence gathering vessel, was strafed and bombed by Israeli Warplanes and then converged upon by torpedo boats in an obvious effort to sink her. After a brief exchange of fire and a torpedo that slammed into the Liberty’s starboard side, the Israeli vessels abruptly ceased attacking, and extended help and immediate medical attention to the Liberty’s crew. 34 Americans died and 171 were wounded in the attack. The Israelis, who said they had mistaken the Liberty for the Egyptian warship El Quseir, immediately apologized to the US for the attack, and assumed full responsibility. They would eventually pay some $12 million in compensation to the victims and their families, to survivors, and to the US government.
A slew of American and Israeli inquiries, including a 1967 navy court of inquiry convened in Malta by Rear Adm. Isaac C. Kidd Jr., generally substantiated the Israelis’ explanation that the attack was an accident. But the inquiries also raised more questions than they answered, and these questions were by no means limited to those hostile to Israel; they were also harbored by some of Israel’s strongest supporters in the Johnson Administration. Why did the Israelis attack a neutral ship without provocation? How had they failed to see the Liberty’s flag or the painted markings on her hull after several overflights by their aircraft? How could they confuse the Liberty with the El Quseir, a smaller and slower ship?
For the next three decades the absence of satisfactory answers to these questions would help spawn a cottage industry of books and conspiracy theories asserting that Israel had deliberately attacked the Liberty and that the US government had covered it up. And Israel’s motive? It was asserted that the Israelis had done so to prevent the Liberty from revealing their impending seizure of Syria’s Golan Heights, a move that Washington was said to have opposed. It was also asserted that the Israelis may have done so in an attempt to blame the Egyptians and thus draw America into the conflict. The Israelis, they argued, had thus killed 34 Americans in cold blood and the American government had covered it up, influenced, aided and abetted by the all-powerful pro-Israel lobby, at whose pleasure they serve.
In 1997, the Americans and the Israelis released a bushel of top-secret documents and other evidence in observance of the 30-year declassification rule on the Liberty attack, and these cleared up many of the mysteries that had long dogged the incident. It was shown that despite a warning from the White House to the American Sixth Fleet to keep its ships within a 250 mile arc from the Egyptian coast, the Liberty’s handlers in the NSA disregarded the order and put the Liberty within 12.5 miles of the coast to eavesdrop on Egyptian military communications with the Soviet Union. Five communications were sent by the Navy’s European headquarters to the Liberty for her to pull back at least 100 miles. However, due to the Six Fleet’s bulky communications apparatus, the messages got diverted to the Philippines and did not reach the Liberty until the day after she was attacked. Furthermore, the request of the Liberty’s skipper for a destroyer escort was denied by the Sixth Fleet CIC on the grounds that “the Liberty is a clearly marked US ship in international waters…and not a reasonable subject for attack.” A request by the Israeli ambassador at the outset of the conflict that the US provide a naval liaison to coordinate communications between the two countries was refused by the US, and thus no one informed Israel of the Liberty’s presence in the area.
Israeli aircraft spotted the vessel in the early morning of June 8. The pilot could not make out the flag, but spotted a hull marking that read “GTR-5″ and the headquarters identified the ship as the USS Liberty. However, with the change in watch in the Israeli HQ at 11:00am, the officers, following standard operating procedure for removing old information from the board, had erroneously assumed that the Liberty had left the area. When an explosion rocked an Israeli arms depot at El Arish, the Israelis, spotting a vessel they incorrectly assumed was an Egyptian warship bombarding them, sent three torpedo boats to engage it.
The skipper of the Liberty then executed a 90 degree starboard turn to the south. The Israelis, pursuing what they thought was an Egyptian warship heading home, called in for air support, and two Mirage fighters raked the Liberty with bombs, napalm, and cannon fire. Transcripts of communications between the Israeli pilots and HQ show that after the second strafing run an Israeli pilot recognized the Latin markings on the hull of the ship and the American flag and reported it to HQ–who immediately ordered him and his wingmen to disengage. They also show a breakdown in communications between the torpedo boats and HQ, and that when the Israeli boat captain got close enough to identify the hull markings and the flag of the Liberty, he immediately broke off the attack and gave help and medical attention to the survivors.
The minutes of the 1967 Naval board of inquiry show that a lack of sufficient wind obscured the flag of the Liberty, thus hiding it from aerial observation and that the attack was “a case of mistaken identity.” Audio tapes transcripts indicate that the Israelis did not know they were attacking an American ship and immediately disengaged when they did. Contrary to decades of conspiracy-mongering, there is, in all the hundreds of pages of declassified material from both countries, not a shred of evidence to support the contention that Israel deliberately sought to attack and sink the USS Liberty.
The release of the material also went a long way toward discrediting Israel’s supposed motives for the attack. The theory, posited by Liberty crew member James Ennes Jr., and endorsed by JC Admiral Thomas Moorer and UN Ambassador George Ball among others, that Israel struck the Liberty to hide its seizure of the Golan Heights from Syria from the US is contradicted by diplomatic cables showing that Israel informed Washington of its intention to do so before the Liberty attack, and that Washington had not objected. Even without the evidence, however, it begs the question as to why the Israelis would leave any survivors on the Liberty, if this was indeed their intent. The other theory, that Israel attacked the ship in order to blame the Egyptians and thus pull America into the war is belied by the fact that the Israelis were winning the war and, most importantly, that they made no effort to blame anyone and took responsibility for the incident moments after the attack. There is, and remains to this day, simply no remotely plausible motivation for Israel to have knowingly attacked a ship belonging to its strongest ally.
In 2003 there was an independent inquiry conducted by Admiral Thomas Moorer and Ward Boston, a former JAG lawyer who handled the naval inquiry of 1967 headed by Adm. Kidd. The inquiry was animated by an affidavit by Ward Boston that asserted that the Johnson Administration had ordered Kidd to conclude that the attack was an accident “despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.” Ward not only failed to produce a shred of evidence to prove this, but was contradicted by judge and former naval aviator A.J. Cristol, a long time friend of Kidd’s (who died in 1999) who produced a letter from Kidd to him in 1991 expressing his belief that the attack was a mistake. The investigation was largely ignored by the press; it merely re-hashed the arguments presented in the old conspiracy theories and ignored the new evidence contained in the declassified documents released in 1997. The credibility of the inquiry was further undermined by the militantly anti-Israel (indeed, anti-Jewish) tone of the statements contained in the reports’ conclusions. It asserted, without evidence, that there had been a cover-up “due to the continuing pressure of the pro-Israel lobby,” that “due to the influence of Israel’s powerful supporters in the US, the White House had deliberately covered up the facts of this attack from the American people,” and that “a danger to our national security exists whenever our elected officials are willing to subordinate American interests to those of any foreign nation.” Again, the inquiry presented nothing new, rehashed what was old, ignored the newly released evidence that undermined their conclusions, and made paranoid, unsubstantiated assertions about Jewish “power” that betrayed the blatantly anti-Israel bias of it’s panel members.
One wonders, how was all this “power” and “influence” leveraged? The American State Dept., under George Marshall, strongly urged Pres. Truman not to recognize the state of Israel in 1948 to avoid angering the Arabs. Eisenhower condemned Israel’s seizure of the Suez peninsula in the 1956 War, and threatened to sever relations with Israel if they did not return it, which they did in 1958. Prior to 1967 Israel’s primary military benefactors were Britian and France, not America. On the eve of the 1967 War, Israel asked America for assistance in the event of hostilities–and was refused. At best, America gave Israel reluctant diplomatic cover both during and after the conflict–that was it. The nebulous charges of Jewish “power” here and elsewhere, lead where they always do when scrutinized–nowhere. It is a conspiracy so powerful that it leaves no trace of itself to be examined.
Robert Werdine:
What is the source of your cut and paste comment and its details? You initially told us the notion that the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty was deliberate was a proven lie, and that everybody knows it. Truly amazing how you project your own delusion onto everyone. Yes, we will see about that, starting here
just to get the ball rolling:
Wiki details what it calls the ongoing controversy and unresolved questions concerning the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty @ link to en.wikipedia.org
A couple of excerpts:
“….the classification of the attack as deliberate is the official policy of the USS Liberty Veterans Association,[53] to which survivors and other former crew members belong. Other survivors run several additional websites. Citing Ennes’s book, Lenczowski notes: Liberty’s personnel received firm orders not to say anything to anybody about the attack, and the naval inquiry was conducted in such a way as to earn it the name of “coverup”.[40]”
“On October 10, 2003, The Jerusalem Post ran an interview with Yiftah Spector, one of the pilots who participated in the attack,[81] and thought to be the lead pilot of the first wave of planes. Spector said the ship was assumed to be Egyptian, stating that: “I circled it twice and it did not fire on me. My assumption was that it was likely to open fire at me and nevertheless I slowed down and I looked and there was positively no flag.” The interview also contains the transcripts of the Israeli communications about the Liberty. The journalist who transcribed the tapes for that article, Arieh O’Sullivan, later confirmed that “the Israeli Air Force tapes he listened to contained blank spaces.”[6]
The Liberty’s survivors contradict Spector. According to subsequently declassified NSA documents: “Every official interview of numerous Liberty crewmen gave consistent evidence that indeed the Liberty was flying an American flag—and, further, the weather conditions were ideal to ensure its easy observance and identification.”[82]
On June 8, 2005, the USS Liberty Veterans Association filed a “Report of War Crimes Committed Against the U.S. Military, June 8, 1967″ with the Department of Defense (DoD). They say Department of Defense Directive 2311.01E requires the Department of Defense to conduct a thorough investigation of the allegations contained in their report. DoD has responded that a new investigation will not be conducted since a Navy Court of Inquiry already investigated the facts and circumstances surrounding the attack.
As of 2006, the National Security Agency (NSA) has yet to declassify “boxes and boxes” of Liberty documents. Numerous requests under both declassification directives and the Freedom of Information Act are pending in various agencies including the NSA, Central Intelligence Agency, and Defense Intelligence Agency.
“… On June 8, 2007, the National Security Agency released hundreds of additional declassified documents on the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty, a communications interception vessel, on June 8, 1967.” [83]
On October 2, 2007, The Chicago Tribune published a special report[6] into the attack, containing numerous previously unreported quotes from former military personnel with first-hand knowledge of the incident. Many of these quotes directly contradict the U.S. National Security Agency’s position that it never intercepted the communications of the attacking Israeli pilots, claiming that not only did transcripts of those communications exist, but also that it showed the Israelis knew they were attacking an American naval vessel.”
jonah
The resolution is as its says. No more, no less. You’re attempts to re-write it are laughable. The word ‘negotiate’ does not appear anywhere. The word ‘Palestinians’ likewise does not appear anywhere. The Palestinians were not a party to it, had no say in it’s drafting. The Palestinians were not and are still not a UN Member State. UN/UNSC resolutions cannot be passed for or against non members. They can only tell UN Members how they can or cannot act towards non-members and in this respect Israel is bound to the UN Charter Chapt XI in it’s entirety in order that there be peace in Palestine. (Aka what remained of the non-independent provisional state of Palestine after Jordan and Israel were declared independent of Palestine).
You might also note, if you dare read them, that there are no UNSC resolutions calling for peace in Israel, which is rather weird if Israel was being invaded. They all say ‘in Palestine’. Israel is not a part of Palestine, never has been.
UNSC Res 242 was to be implemented by peace agreements between already existing states at the time the resolution was written. To date, two peace agreements have emerged. You will note, if you’d dare to read it, the Egypt Israeli peace agreement which required Israeli forces to withdraw from all of Egypt’s Sovereign territory BEFORE peaceful relations resumed. Note also the reference to UNSC Res 242.
There is no peace agreement between Israel and Syria, because Israel has yet to withdraw. No Peace agreement between Israel and Lebanon, Israel has yet to fully withdraw. Quite simple really. Except of course if you have been brainwashed into believing nonsense.
Finally, the pre-emptive Plan Dalet, escalating the civil war pre -May 15th 1948, became a war between a state, Israel and Palestine the moment Israel was declared whilst Jewish forces were outside the sovereign extent being declared. That war has not ended and the same silly ‘defensive’ arguments are being used today. there are no peace agreements, ceasefire or armistice agreements between Israel and Palestine and as long as Israel takes more land to defend the land it has already illegally acquired, there never will be.
The Hasbarafications for illegally acquiring territory have become lore, unfortunately it does not relate to the laws Israel is obliged to uphold.
Francis Boyle/Curtis Doebbler:
“The resolution is as its says. No more, no less. You’re attempts to re-write it are laughable. The word ‘negotiate’ does not appear anywhere.”
We’ve argued this resolution issue enough. Each time, my side as brought source after source showing that the omission of the word “the” in the English text is intentional. The position of the international community on the peace process reflects this ambiguity.
UNSC 242 does not include the word negotiation. However, its parameters have been cited countless times as the BASIS for negotiation.
The rest of what you write is nonsense. I’d like to see your qualifications as an international lawyer, because everything you write comes out of the PLO negotiating team playbook.
Israel has withdrawn from Lebanon, and the UN has certified it, explicitly indicating that the Shebaa Farms issue does not constitute occupation. The lack of a peace agreement with Lebanon has more to do with Syrian influence and the inability of the Lebanese to govern their own state than anything else, and any student of politics knows it. Israel doesn’t have a peace agreement with Saudi Arabia either, and it’s got nothing to do with any land conflict. It’s got to do with Saudi Arabia’s rejection of Israel’s right to exist.
The lack of peace with Syria has as much to do with Syria’s support for terrorist groups within Israel’s own border as it does with Israel’s occupation of the strategically important Golan Heights.
I believe the source is Michael Oren’s book on the Six Day War.
But, you know, I’m not surprised by the sentiments here. There are a lot of conspiracy theorists around here.
Of course the attack on the USS Liberty was deliberate and knowing. The attackers jammed U.S. Navy frequencies, as well as the International Distress Frequency.
“In fact, Israel’s attack on the Liberty was as accidental as Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor.”
I believe the source is Michael Oren
oren, the man who claimed our american forefathers were studying hebrew? yikes!
A. Source?
B. I’m sure a number of them did, since it was somewhat common back then.
Any luck with those nukes in
IraqSyriaIran, hophmi?Dear hophmi,
Way to go. Right on.
To Talknic,
What a silly, vapid, and incoherent screed.
Jonah made two simple arguments, both of them true. First, that Israel in 1967 had acquired the territories in a defensive war. Second, that his fellow bloggers were misrepresenting the content of Res. 242 and the context in which it was framed.
You said: “The word ‘negotiate’ does not appear anywhere.”
So what? Do you imagine that the framers of Res. 242 envisaged something other than a negotiated solution to the conflict? How would the involved member-states establish “a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security”? By war?
You said: “The word ‘Palestinians’ likewise does not appear anywhere. The Palestinians were not a party to it, had no say in it’s drafting. The Palestinians were not and are still not a UN Member State. UN/UNSC resolutions cannot be passed for or against non members.”
Actually, they can. But in this instance you are correct: this was certainly true in 1967 when the West Bank was part of Jordan, and Gaza was annexed by Egypt. As Jordan and Egypt no longer lay claim to the WB and Gaza respectively, the Resolution, in the context of the present Israeli-Palestinian conflict today, would then reference “territory” in a yet to be determined capacity. Without Jordanian and Egyptian claims, the status of the territories is legally ambiguous. In fact, they have been since 1948. The UN never officially sanctioned the annexations of The WB and Gaza by Jordan and Egypt, but they never condemned them, either. Res. 242 does not sanction the Israeli occupation of the territories but stipulates their return in the context of “a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security.” Egypt and Jordan are no thus longer involved in any issues pertaining to Res. 242, and both Israel and the Palestinian Authority agreed in 1993 that the resolution of the final status issues (whenever that happens) between the two parties would constitute the implementation of Res.242 in the context of the WB and Gaza. Neither party, to my knowledge, has yet disavowed the validity of Res. 242 to this day.
Also, as Jonah points out:
“Israel would be willing to cede territory in favor of a two-state solution – and would be able to convince own people as well as the majority of settlers – only and exclusively on the condition that true peace can be achieved with all neighbors, in the first place with the Palestinians. Now, a true peace that is worth that name, is only achieved on the road of peace negotiations, as was the case with Egypt and Jordan. Negotiations that the Palestinians (and only to talk about the so-called moderate) avoided like the plague – and will also in the future.”
This is true. If the Palestinians are going to have a have a state unilaterally imposed by the UN without Israel’s consent, it will be an abrogation of both the spirit and letter of Res. 242. It will have effectively discarded negotiation and diplomacy from the peace process. In fact, if a Palestinian state is imposed against Israel’s consent, there will be no peace process left.
Opportunists always, the Palestinians are doing an end-run around the whole, mutually agreed-upon framework of negotiations and diplomacy in the hope that they can leverage their considerable support in the UN General Assembly into the unilateral establishment of a state for them. Of course, the Palestinians have been making paper airplanes out of Oslo for years worth of violations, so what else is new? As with the Goldstone report and so many other spurious, one-sided condemnations over the years, the UN will have demonstrated yet again just how selectively it will apply international law where Israel is concerned. If the Palestinian Authority and the UN intend to render Res. 242 null and void they need to say so and explain how this can and will be done.
You said: “They (UN Sec.Council Resolutions) can only tell UN Members how they can or cannot act towards non-members and in this respect Israel is bound to the UN Charter Chapt XI in it’s entirety in order that there be peace in Palestine. (Aka what remained of the non-independent provisional state of Palestine after Jordan and Israel were declared independent of Palestine).”
This is simply incorrect. Only Chapter VII Resolutions can “tell UN members how they can or cannot act” in any capacity because only Chapter VII Resolutions are legally binding. In any event, you are misapplying Chapter XI, which simply enjoins member states of the United Nations which:
“…have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories, and, to this end:
a. to ensure, with due respect for the culture of the peoples concerned, their political, economic, social, and educational advancement, their just treatment, and their protection against abuses;
b. to develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions, according to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and their varying stages of advancement;
c. to further international peace and security;
d. to promote constructive measures of development, to encourage research, and to cooperate with one another and, when and where appropriate, with specialized international bodies with a view to the practical achievement of the social, economic, and scientific purposes set forth in this Article”
What is beyond dispute is that both Egypt and Jordan, in the 1948-1967 period, thoroughly violated the spirit and letter of this article. They not only made no attempt to create an independent Palestine, but even went to considerable lengths to suppress it, King Abdullah of Jordan even going so far as to forbid the use of the term “Palestinian” on Jordanian legal documents. Israel’s agreement to implement the Oslo accords, its disengagement from Gaza, and its continuing efforts to negotiate a solution with the PA constitute a fulfillment of Israel’s obligations under Chapter XI “in its entirety.”
All in all you seem to be interpreting Res. 242 as a blanket condemnation of so-called Israeli “aggression.” It is no such thing. Like all the rest of the gang here, you are interpreting “international law” as what ever you happen to agree with.
You’re simply cherry picking the parts of Res. 242 that you like, and ignoring the parts you don’t.
The text reads:
“Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,”
and
“(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;”
Now, you can’t have
“Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war “
Without
“the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,”
And you can’t separate
“(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;”
from
“(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;”
It does not implicitly or explicitly condemn or even characterize any Israeli “aggression.” It simply envisages (among other things) an Israeli withdrawal from the territories in the context of “a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security.”
What is abundantly clear here is that it is not Jonah who is attempting to “rewrite” Res. 242. You are, and rather badly at that.
“You might also note, if you dare read them, that there are no UNSC resolutions calling for peace in Israel, which is rather weird if Israel was being invaded. They all say ‘in Palestine’. Israel is not a part of Palestine, never has been.”
And your point? No one ever said Israel had been invaded. Only that she had waged a defensive war to thwart an impending attack by Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, and Syria.
That reminds me, it is always fun to read all of those blood curdling “we-will-destroy-Israel” threats that the Arab leaders were screaming in the days leading up to the Six Day War and, afterwards, the whiney, self-pitying complaints and lamentations that replaced them after they had lost it. They went from would be conquerors and slayers of the “Zionist Enemy” to aggrieved and violated victims in the course of a single work week, and, sadly, they had no one but themselves to blame. Hubris met its Nemesis.
“ UNSC Res 242 was to be implemented by peace agreements between already existing states at the time the resolution was written. To date, two peace agreements have emerged. You will note, if you’d dare to read it, the Egypt Israeli peace agreement which required Israeli forces to withdraw from all of Egypt’s Sovereign territory BEFORE peaceful relations resumed. Note also the reference to UNSC Res 242.”
Huh? First of all, you may have overlooked the fact that Israel offered the return of the territories in return for a full peace, and that Nasser answered them by singing his very own “three no’s” of Khartoum: “No recognition, no negotiation, and no peace.” So that was that. It was a no that was and would be echoed by many other no’s, past, present, and future:
–No to the King-Crane Compromise of 1919
–No to the 1937 Peel Partition
–No to the 1947 UN Partition
–No to the Israeli offer to absorb 100,000 Palestinian refugees in 1950
–No to the offer of autonomy to the Palestinians in 1979
–No to the offer of virtually the entire Golan Heights to Syria in return for a full peace.
–No to a sovereign, contiguous state in The WB, Gaza, and E Jerusalem in 2000/2001
–No to the offer of the WB to Abbas by Olmert in 2008
–No to any direct, face-to-face negotiations without pre-conditions to this day
Quite a list no’s, wouldn’t you say?
As for: “You will note, if you’d dare to read it, the Egypt Israeli peace agreement which required Israeli forces to withdraw from all of Egypt’s Sovereign territory BEFORE peaceful relations resumed. Note also the reference to UNSC Res 242.”
Wrong. Here is the part of the treaty with regard to a phased, Israeli withdrawal:
“Annex I
Protocol Concerning Israeli Withdrawal and Security Agreements
Article I
Concept of Withdrawal
1. Israel will complete withdrawal of all its armed forces and civilians from the Sinai not later than three years from the date of exchange of instruments of ratification of this Treaty.
2. To ensure the mutual security of the Parties, the implementation of phased withdrawal will be accompanied by the military measures and establishment of zones set out in this Annex and in Map 1, hereinafter referred to as “the Zones.”
3. The withdrawal from the Sinai will be accomplished in two phases:
a. The interim withdrawal behind the line from east of El-Arish to Ras Mohammed as delineated on Map 2 within nine months from the date of exchange of instruments of ratification of this Treaty.
b. The final withdrawal from the Sinai behind the international boundary not later than three years from the date of exchange of instruments of ratification of this Treaty.”
You said: “There is no peace agreement between Israel and Syria, because Israel has yet to withdraw. No Peace agreement between Israel and Lebanon, Israel has yet to fully withdraw. Quite simple really. Except of course if you have been brainwashed into believing nonsense.”
Hophimi’s remarks on the Lebanon withdrawal and the Shebaa Farms are absolutely correct. Also, in 2000 Israel offered the return of virtually the entire Golan Heights to Syria in return for a full peace; it was refused. Contrary to what has been asserted elsewhere, there was no denial of Syrian water rights, just a stipulation of Israeli access to water on a miniscule stretch of land by the Sea of Galilee. Hafez al-Assad never had any intention of making peace with Israel, even for the entire Golan. That is why he raised his price so impossibly high: he did not want peace with Israel to stain his conscience or his legacy. That was the real deal-killer. As Ehud Barak told Benny Morris:
“Assad wanted Israel to capitulate in advance to all his demands. Only then would he agree to even enter into substantive negotiations. I couldn’t agree to this. We must continue to live [in the Middle East] afterward [and, had we made the required concessions, would have been seen as weak, inviting depredation].”
Cruel, cynical, and wily, Assad, like Saddam Hussein and the gangster-mullahs of Iran, was the most stalwart of the anti-Israel rejectionists. Like Arafat, he made all the appropriate noises about “peace” for gullible Western diplomats and journalists, but that he would have ever have made peace with the “Zionist enemy” whose destruction was an article of faith for him, was laughable. Just as Arafat sought not only the West Bank, Gaza, and E Jerusalem but all of Israel, Assad’s ambitions did not focus merely on the Golan; he sought the creation of a “greater Syria” stretching from Turkey to the Nile. Not by war or outright aggression; he was quite unlike Saddam in this manner. But the cunning manipulation of opportunities as they presented themselves, as in Lebanon. In a 1976 meeting with the PLO he told them:
“You do not represent Palestine as much as we do. Do not forget one thing: there is no Palestinian people, no Palestinian entity, there is only Syria! You are an integral part of the Syrian people and Palestine is an integral part of Syria. Therefore it is we, the Syrian authorities, who are the real representatives of the Palestinian people.”
As for the Plan Dalet, Benny Morris writes:
“The essence of the plan was the clearing of hostile and potentially hostile forces out of the interior of the territory of the prospective Jewish State, establishing territorial continuity between the major concentrations of Jewish population and securing the future State’s borders before, and in anticipation of, the invasion [by Arab states]. The Haganah regarded almost all the villages as actively or potentially hostile…the plan was neither understood nor used by the senior field officers as a blanket instruction for the expulsion of ‘the Arabs’. But, in providing for the expulsion or destruction of villages that had resisted or might threaten the Yishuv, it constituted a strategic-doctrinal and carte blanche for expulsions by front, brigade, district and battalion commanders (who in each case argued military necessity) and it gave commanders, post facto, formal, persuasive cover for their actions. However, during April–June, relatively few commanders faced the moral dilemma of having to carry out the expulsion clauses. Townspeople and villagers usually left their homes before or during battle, and Haganah rarely had to decide about, or issue, expulsion orders…”
The attempts by the likes of Khalidi, Pappe, and others to portray the Plan as a blueprint for the total expulsion and dispossession of the Arabs from Palestine is simply a conspiracy theory. It was a military operation to consolidate a defensive perimeter among the Jewish communities in Palestine in preparation of the war that the Arabs’ adamant rejection of the partition had made inevitable.
Listen to Abba Eban at the 1947 UN partition negotiations:
“We relied on the general premise of a historical connection, but made no claims whatever about for the inclusion of particular areas on our side of the partition boundary on the grounds of ancient connections. Since Hebron was full of Arabs, we did not ask for it. Since Beersheba was virtually empty, we put in a successful claim. The central Zionist thesis was that there existed sufficient room within Eretz Israel for a densly populated Jewish society to be established without displacing the Arab populations, and even without intruding upon their deep-rooted social cohesion.”
These sentiments hardly express the language of racism, ethnic cleansing, or any dispute about the Arabs’ attatchment to Palestine; quite the contrary. Nothing in the world will ever change the fact that the Jews accepted, and the Arabs rejected, both the 1937 Peel Commission Partition that would have given the Arabs 80% and the Jews 20% of Palestine, and the 1947 partition that would have split it between them. The Arabs’ rejection of the 1947 partition was the progenitor of the Arab-Israeli conflict as we know it today. Everyone at the time knew that the Arabs’ rejection meant war. How could it have been otherwise? Were the over 600,000 Jews then in Palestine simply going to pack up and leave or wait for another Holocaust?
And another Holocaust it would have been. As in 1967, the Arabs in 1948 made perfectly clear the war of extermination they were intending to wage.
Said the Grand Mufti: “murder the Jews. Murder them all.”
Said Ahlman Azzah Pasha, the Arab League’s Secretary General: “This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre, which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.”
Said Ahmed Shukairy, then the Mufti’s spokesman: the war would result in “the elimination of the Jewish State…it does not matter how many Jews there are. We will sweep them into the sea.”
There would have been no refugee crisis if there had been no war. If the Jews really had meant to ethnically cleanse the Arabs, why did they accept the partition at all, which would have included some 397,000 Arabs living in the Jewish state? And why didn’t they expel and dispossess the 160,000 Arabs that remained in the 1949 ceasefire boundaries? Also, why did the Israelis agree to, and the Arabs reject the 1950 UN plan for resettling some 100,000 or more refugees within Israel proper?
Well, so much for the “the Hasbarafications for illegally acquiring territory.” It cannot but be perfectly clear to anyone who can read that your ignorance of international law and history, and the crude biases that underpin it, have here been exposed for all to see.
The way in which territory is acquired is irrelevant. But this was not a defensive war. The Arab armies (although outnumbered, and with inferior equipment) only intervened after the massacre at Deir Yassin, and after 250,000 Palestinians had been ethnically cleansed from their homes and villages. The main force was the Jordanian army and Israel and Jordan had already done a deal so that the Jordanian army occupied territory, and did little real fighting.
Since Israel is not interested in negotiating on the basis of the 67 lines, then your points about 242 are irrelevant. Israel refuses to seek peace on the basis of the 67 line, by adding more and more demands such as that it must be recognised as a Jewish state, and refusing the right of return.
Because they could not carry on any further. They changed tactics, that is all.
The Mufti was not directing the fighting. This was a defensive war by the Arab armies, they reluctantly and healf-heartedly intervened to stop the ethnic cleansing and massacres.
Israel never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity, and the Palestine Papers show that Israel has rejected the best offer it will ever get.
Of course the Palestinians are right to go to the UN. Israel is not interested in peace. It will not even suspend the illegal settlements to allow peace talks. Israel is stalling until such time as a contiguous viable Palestine is impossible, and greater Israel is a fact on the ground.
As for Benny Morris:
‘ According to The Economist: “Mr Morris also said, in an interview that stunned his supporters, that Israel was justified in uprooting the Palestinian ‘fifth column’ once the Arabs had attacked the infant state, and that the number executed or massacred—some 800, on his reckoning—was ‘peanuts’ compared with, say, the massacres in Bosnia in the 1990s.”‘
‘When a Haaretz interviewer called the 1948 Palestinian exodus “ethnic cleansing,” Morris responded that “[t]here are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing. I know that this term is completely negative in the discourse of the 21st century, but when the choice is between ethnic cleansing and genocide—the annihilation of your people—I prefer ethnic cleansing.”‘
‘“Something like a cage has to be built for them. I know that sounds terrible. It is really cruel. But there is no choice. There is a wild animal there that has to be locked up in one way or another.”’
link to en.wikipedia.org
jonah
LOL. The Palestinians didn’t name themselves in 1964. They decided their state, if it was to ever come about, would be called Palestine.
Quite simple really unless you’re fed a diet of twisted Hasbara bullsh*te
Palestine was Palestine for at least 2,000 years. Unless of course you can show me where it was officially renamed.
Palestine, what is left of it, is still Palestine BTW. link to wp.me
By denying the existence Palestinians of 2,000 years or more, you’re denying the greater part of Jewish history in the region, as Palestinian Jews. Far longer than any Kingdom or State of Israel ever existed. I guess simple maths is not your forte though.
talknic, I think you miss the difference between Palestine, a name referring to a geographical region (which obviously exists), and Palestine, the nation-state of the Arab inhabitants (which will be created sometime in the future for the first time ever).
Robert Werdine
UNSC Res 242 says exactly what it means. No more, no less. What was said before or after the final draft, does not change the final draft. You’re justifications exist by adding, changing, mutilating, what is actually written.
(passing UN resolutions against of for non-members.) “Actually, they can.” Example of a resolution for or against a non Member. Thx
“Gaza was annexed by Egypt” Uh huh. Annexation document and date? Thx
Jordan annexed the West Bank on request of the Palestinians, as a temporary trustee (Session: 12-I – May 1950)., per the UN Charter. That’s why there is no UN condemnation. Whereas Israel illegally annexed East Jerusalem.
The acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible.
The UN does not differentiate between defensive or offensive war in respect to the acquisition of territory. Show me the exemption. Thx
If Israel’s wars were defensive, show me a UNSC resolution condemning the Arab States. It is customary for the UNSC to issue a resolution against Members who attack other states. Go ahead.. Thx
“How would the involved member-states establish “a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security”?” By signing Peace Treaties Egypt .. Jordan “Aiming at the achievement of a just, lasting and comprehensive peace in the Middle East based an Security Council resolutions 242 and 338 in all their aspects;”
“Without Jordanian and Egyptian claims, the status of the territories is legally ambiguous. In fact, they have been since 1948.” Read the UN Charter Chapter XI
You’re even blind to what you cut and paste re the Egypt/Israeli Peace agreement. “… after the completion of the interim withdrawal … following completion of the interim withdrawal … after completion of the interim withdrawal … Upon completion of the interim withdrawal ”
The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem BTW was appointed by the Brits, not elected by the Palestinians, nor does he have anything what so ever to do with Palestinians of today. NONE of whom fought any war in 1948. They were ALL children. None of whom were alive in 1920. link to wp.me I guess maths is not your strong point.
Israel’s argument on RoR is propaganda.
The majority of Palestinians have never lifted a finger towards anyone. The majority of whom have not been suicide bombers, have not dispossessed anyone have not bulldozed farms houses, entire villages.
The rest of your twaddle can be disproven on every point by the UNSC resolutions when cited verbatim. For example, show me one that says peace in Israel. Thx
“LOL. The Palestinians didn’t name themselves in 1964. They decided their state, if it was to ever come about, would be called Palestine.”
Really? I think they created an organization called the Palestine Liberation Organization. This was the first time they distinguished themselves from the greater Arab nation around them. I don’t think they made any decision with regard to what they were going to call the territory between the Jordan and the Meditteranean when they took it over with the help of Egypt and other Arab states.
“Quite simple really unless you’re fed a diet of twisted Hasbara bullsh*te ”
Whatever. Your link is laughable by your own logic.
Thanks hophmi. You saved me the trouble of overtly stating, and then constructing a proof, as to how ignorant, racist, hypocritical and morally bankrupt the ultra-conservative right wing are.
Can someone post that photo of the coins from the early 20th century that have “Palestine” stamped on them? I forgot to bookmark it.
Again, Robert, well said, correct and clear in every part. We must firmly oppose historical and legal revisionism, wide-spread in anti-Israeli circles and propagated without any reluctance, and reiterate the evidence of the facts, that the first attempts systematically to rewrite through spurious biased arguments.
Your contribution is valuable.
I guess you haven’t got the latest email update from GIUUS. There is a new party line to quote on Goldstone. He is now a good guy. Get with the program!
You are however right that international law is selectively applied where Israel is concerned. This is due to the US veto.
I guess you haven’t got the latest email update from GIUUS. There is a new party line to quote on Goldstone. He is now a good guy. Get with the program!
You are however right that international law is selectively applied where Israel is concerned. This is due to the US veto.
Jonah,
Thank you for your kind words.
Always a pleasure.
Talknic,
Abraham Lincoln once said that it is better to thought a fool and remain silent, than speak up and remove all doubt.
You wrote:
“UNSC Res 242 says exactly what it means. No more, no less. What was said before or after the final draft, does not change the final draft. You’re justifications exist by adding, changing, mutilating, what is actually written.”
This is preposterous. Just what did this “adding, changing, mutilating, what is actually written” consist of ? You did not cite an example and for good reason: there were none to cite. I quoted directly from Res.242 and you know it. Are you really saying I didn’t?
I cited examples such as how phrases like “Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war “ were meant to be complementary to phrases like “the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,”
All attempts by you and everyone else to interpret Res. 242 as a one-sided, blanket condemnation of so-called “Israeli aggression” in the 1967 War and illegalizing Israel’s presence in the territories is simply wrong.
This interpretation of the complementary nature and purpose of the adjoining clauses is fully supported by the sentiments expressed by then-British UN rep Lord Caradon, the chief author of Res.242, in the 1379th meeting of the UN on November 16, 1967:
“In the long discussions with representatives of Arab countries, they have made it clear that they seek no more than justice. The central issue of the recovery and restoration of their territories is naturally uppermost in their minds. The issue of withdrawal to them is all-important and, of course, they seek a just settlement to end the long suffering of the refugees.
The Israelis, on the other hand, tell us that withdrawal must never be to insecurity and hostility. The action to be taken must be within the framework of a permanent peace and withdrawal must be to secure boundaries. There must be an end of the use, aid, threat, and fear of violence and hostility. I have said before that these aims do not conflict; they are equal. They are both essential, There must be adequate provision in any resolution to meet them both, since to attempt to pursue one without the other would be foolish and futile.
So we have been guided by all the earlier work which has been done and by the eloquent statements which have been made by both sides, and we have endeavored, with the help of my brother members of the Council, to set out in a draft resolution what I believe will be recognized as a sincere and fair and honest attempt both to meet the just claims of both sides and also to discharge the high responsibility of this Council.
I cannot maintain that the resolution which we have by these means prepared will be accepted in full by either side. Naturally they will have their doubts and differences on wording and formulation and presentation and emphasis, but I trust that both sides, as well as all members of this Council, will recognize that the resolution which I now present to the Council is indeed balanced and just.”
Here is the first operative paragraph of Res. 242:
“(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
“(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;
In his attempt to clarify the precise meaning of that crucial paragraph, Lord Caradon could not have been clearer:
“As to the first operative paragraph, and with due respect for fulfillment of Charter principles, we consider it essential that there should be applied the principles of both withdrawal and security, and we have no doubt that the words set out throughout that paragraph are perfectly clear.”
Caradon here explicitly emphasized the balanced, complementary nature of the adjoining clauses:
“The Israelis…tell us that withdrawal must never be to insecurity and hostility. The action to be taken must be within the framework of a permanent peace and withdrawal must be to secure boundaries.”
Caradon here put his finger on the whole dynamic of the conflict: the refusal of the Arab states recognize or live in peace beside Israel. “Within the framework of a permanent peace” meant withdrawal in the context of a full peace, not a mere cease-fire, and that meant Egypt, Jordan, and Syria recognizing Israel’s right to exist and making peace with her, something the three states adamantly refused to do both before the war and immediately afterward.
And, obviously referring to the barrage of we-will-destroy-Israel threats that Arab leaders were screaming in the days before the war, Lord Caradon said:
“There must be an end of the use, aid, threat, and fear of violence and hostility. I have said before that these aims do not conflict; they are equal. They are both essential, There must be adequate provision in any resolution to meet them both, since to attempt to pursue one without the other would be foolish and futile.”
American UN rep Arthur Goldberg, who assisted Caradon in authoring 242 said:
“Does Resolution 242 as unanimously adopted by the UN Security Council require the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from all of the territories occupied by Israel during the 1967 war? The answer is no. In the resolution, the words the and all are omitted. Resolution 242 calls for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the 1967 conflict, without specifying the extent of the withdrawal. The resolution, therefore, neither commands nor prohibits total withdrawal.
If the resolution is ambiguous, and purposely so, on this crucial issue, how is the withdrawal issue to be settled? By direct negotiations between the concerned parties. Resolution 242 calls for agreement between them to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement. Agreement and acceptance necessarily require negotiations.”
The intent of the framers of Res. 242 could thus not be clearer. It was meant to serve as a framework from which Israel and the Arab states could resolve the conflict with each other. As I explained in my earlier post, Res. 242 does not implicitly or explicitly condemn or even characterize any Israeli “aggression.” It simply envisages (among other things) an Israeli withdrawal from the territories in the context of “a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security.”
The attempts of you and your like-minded bloggers to rewrite and misrepresent the meanings of Res. 242 as a condemnation of “Israeli aggression” have thus come to naught, irrefutably and irredeemably.
You said: “(passing UN resolutions against of for non-members.) “Actually, they can.” Example of a resolution for or against a non Member.”
An example? UNSC Resolution 1368, passed in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks which condemns the terrorist attacks and the (stateless) attackers and enjoins member states “to bring to justice the perpetrators, organizations, and sponsors of these terrorist attacks.” The resolution is reaffirmed in Resolutions 1373 and 1566. The Security Council can pass either Chapter VI or Chapter VII resolutions against any nation or entity where it finds the circumstances and the cause to do so to address any and all threats to peace and security.
You are correct that Egypt did not officially annex Gaza into part of Egypt, but occupied it. I misspoke. However, they did not allow any hint of self-determination of the Palestinians, and suppressed it vigorously, and sometimes violently.
Your reference supposedly legitimizing Jordan’s annexation is from a session of the Arab League, not the UN:
“Special session called to discuss steps against Jordan due to her unilateral annexation of Eastern Palestine; Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, and Syria support expulsion, while Iraq pressed a compromise position (later accepted) which viewed Jordan as the “trustee” of the area.”
And what is this “per the UN Charter” business? The UN simply did not address the issue.
And your reference shows that King Abdullah certainly did not view Jordan as a mere “trustee,” for, it says: “King Abdullah went one step further. On 24 April 1950 the Jordan House of Deputies and House of Notables, in a joint session, adopted a resolution declaring “complete unity between the two sides of the Jordan and their union in one state…at whose head reigns King Abdullah Ibn al Hussain, on a basis of constitutional representative government and equality of the rights and duties of all citizens.”
Your reference further states that “a group of hand-picked leaders of Palestinian Arabs resolved to ask King Abdullah of Transjordan to incorporate the Arab parts of Palestine into his kingdom.”
Who were these “handpicked” leaders, and what was the source of their authority and legitimacy? You seem to be unaware of the fact that Abdullah, like the other regional players, never had any intention of creating an independent Palestine, regardless of whatever any Palestinian “leader” said. As Benny Morris has written, by the end of the 1948 War, “The Arab war plan had changed…into a multinational land grab focusing on the Arab areas of the country. The evolving Arab ‘plans’ failed to assign any of these whatsoever to the Palestinians or to consider their political aspirations.”
What all of this emphasizes is the legal ambiguity of the Egypt/Jordan occupation/annexation of Palestinan territory. In an earlier post I wrote:
“As to whether Israel’s presence in the West Bank is “illegal,” this is rather doubtful. The Jordanians annexed the West Bank in 1948 as part of Jordan and, in the 19 years that they occupied it, made absolutely no attempt to create a Palestinian state, and it is here that we can see the blatant hypocrisy behind the whole spurious Israel-as-occupier/oppressor narrative. Notice that no one had ever excoriated Egypt and Jordan for “occupying” Palestinian land and denying the Palestinians a state in the 1948-1967 period, though this is exactly what they did, sometimes with exceptional violence and brutality. King Abdullah even went so far as to forbid the use of the term”Palestinian” on Jordanian legal documents. Where was all that talk about “violations of international law,” “oppression,” and “illegal occupation?” Apparently, all of these things only happen when the occupiers are Jews.
Either both the Egypt/Jordan and the Israeli occupations were illegal or neither were. The truth is neither were because the final borders demarcating Israel and Palestine are still unsettled. They have been since 1948. The borders that the Israelis won in 1948 were armistice lines, not those of an established peace treaty. The Arab states themselves, armed and allied with a powerful oil weapon and a comfortable majority in the UN General Assembly, only insisted on an independent Palestine in the early 1970′s and never before. There has never been an independent Palestine; the West Bank was thus “legally” part of Jordan until 1967 and Jordan has renounced any claim to the territory. Therefore, any presence in the West Bank, whether Arab or Israeli, is, at best, legally dubious since “Palestine” is not and never has been, a sovereign, independent entity, and therefore cannot be “illegally” occupied like, say, Saddam did in Kuwait in 1990. This is underscored in UNSC Resolution 242 which stipulates that the final, legal borders will therefore be determined by the parties in a mutually agreed peace “within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.” That is, when the Palestinians finally decide to say “yes” to a state, and reconcile themselves to Israel’s existence.”
You state:
“The acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible.
The UN does not differentiate between defensive or offensive war in respect to the acquisition of territory. Show me the exemption.
If Israel’s wars were defensive, show me a UNSC resolution condemning the Arab States. It is customary for the UNSC to issue a resolution against Members who attack other states. Go ahead”
You are applying a mindlessly rigid construction to Article 51 of the UN Charter. Article 51, which prohibits acts of aggression, excludes acts of self-defense, and the laws of initiating hostilities (jus ad bellum) does not inhibit the use of force in that capacity in international conflicts. Israel’s pre-emptive attack of 1967 was a clear example of such an instance, and, as I have demonstrated, the UN did not condemn the Israeli attack as an act of “aggression” as it did in, say, 1990 with Saddam’s unprovoked invasion of Kuwait.
The incoherence of your arguments, your ignorance of international law, and shaky grasp of facts are even more pronounced here than they were before. Keep up the good work.
Secretary of State Dean Rusk commented on the most significant area of disagreement regarding the resolution:
There was much bickering over whether that resolution should say from “the” territories or from “all” territories. In the French version, which is equally authentic, it says withdrawal de territory, with de meaning “the.” We wanted that to be left a little vague and subject to future negotiation because we thought the Israeli border along the West Bank could be “rationalized”; certain anomalies could easily be straightened out with some exchanges of territory, making a more sensible border for all parties. We also wanted to leave open demilitarization measures in the Sinai and the Golan Heights and take a fresh look at the old city of Jerusalem. But we never contemplated any significant grant of territory to Israel as a result of the June 1967 war. On that point we and the Israelis to this day remain sharply divided. This situation could lead to real trouble in the future. Although every President since Harry Truman has committed the United States to the security and independence of Israel, I’m not aware of any commitment the United States has made to assist Israel in retaining territories seized in the Six-Day War.
A memorandum from the President’s Special Assistant, Walt Rostow to President Johnson said “What’s on the Arab Ambassadors’ minds boils down to one big question: Will we make good on our pledge to support the territorial integrity of all states in the Middle East? Our best answer is that we stand by that pledge, but the only way to make good on it is to have a genuine peace. The tough question is whether we’d force Israel back to 4 June borders if the Arabs accepted terms that amounted to an honest peace settlement. Secretary Rusk told the Yugoslav Foreign Minister: ‘The US had no problem with frontiers as they existed before the outbreak of hostilities. If we are talking about national frontiers–in a state of peace–then we will work toward restoring them.’ But we all know that could lead to a tangle with the Israelis.”
There is, however, another way to peace. The final status of these lands must, of course, be reached through the give-and-take of negotiations; but it is the firm view of the United States that self-government by the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza in association with Jordan offers the best chance for a durable, just and lasting peace.
It is the United States’ position that – in return for peace – the withdrawal provision of Resolution 242 applies to all fronts, including the West Bank and Gaza
Lord Caradon said that the parties assumed that withdrawal from occupied territories as provided in the resolution was applicable to East Jerusalem. “Nevertheless so important is the future of Jerusalem that it might be argued that we should have specifically dealt with that issue in the 1967 Resolution. It is easy to say that now, but I am quite sure that if we had attempted to raise or settle the question of Jerusalem as a separate issue at that time our task in attempting to find a unanimous decision would have been far greater if not impossible.”
Glenn Perry asserts that because the French version resolves ambiguities in the English text, and is more consistent with the other clauses of the treaty, it is the correct interpretation. He argues that “it is an accepted rule that the various language versions must be considered together, with the ambiguities of one version elucidated by the other”. He cites Article 33 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
, which states that except when a treaty provides that one text shall prevail “the meaning which best reconciles the texts, having regard to the object and purpose of the treaty, shall be adopted”. He furthermore argues that the context of the passage, in a treaty that reaffirms “‘territorial integrity’, ‘territorial inviolability,’ and ‘the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war’ – taken together cannot be reconciled with anything less than full withdrawal”. He argues that the reference to “secure and recognized borders” can be interpreted in several ways, and only one of them contradicts the principle of full withdrawal.
Congressional Research Service (CRS) Issue Brief quotes policy statements made by President Johnson in a speech delivered on September 10, 1968 and by Secretary of State Rogers in a speech delivered on December 9, 1969 “The United States has stated that boundaries should be negotiated and mutually recognized, “should not reflect the weight of conquest,” and that adjustments in the pre-1967 boundaries should be “insubstantial.”
President Carter asked for a State Department report “to determine if there was any justice to the Israeli position that the resolution did not include all the occupied territories”. The State Department report concluded:
Support for the concept of total withdrawal was widespread in the Security Council, and it was only through intensive American efforts that a resolution was adopted which employed indefinite language in the withdrawal clause. In the process of obtaining this result, the United States made clear to the Arab states and several other members of the Security Council that the United States envisioned only insubstantial revisions of the 1949 armistice lines. Israel did not protest the approach.
Israel’s withdrawal behind the green line is the least it should do if WW2 was not fought totally in vain. The green line itself, even if honored by the native Palestinians, is already a great injustice to those people. The rest is talmudic-style BS. There’s no angels on a pin, although pins exist.
Citizen
Israel’s withdrawal behind the green line is the least it should do if WW2 was not fought totally in vain. The green line itself, even if honored by the native Palestinians, is already a great injustice to those people.
The Green Line have nothing to do with “Palestinians” whatsoever.
Adding to Lightbringer’s comment, the Green Line is more accurately described as the Armistice Line Israel and the Arab states agreed to after the War of 1948.
Alright then, let’s go back to the UN partition plan and use that line. It was voted on and passed by the UN. Sounds fair to me and it seems to fit your criteria for an official border, right?
I’m convinced that 2 states is the only solution which is both morally sound and -just barely-politically viable. The Jewish people have the right to a Jewish State, Jewish and democratic. The Palestinian people also deserve the same right to a state of their own. Given the high level of mistrust and hatred between the two peoples, throwing them together into one state would guarantee a bloodbath.
The settlements are a crime, a disaster and an obstacle in the path towards a solution. Some observations:
- The precedents for dismantling and evacuating settlements are there. It was done in Yamit and the rest of the Sinai settlements, and in Gaza. There were protests, but no civil war and no IDF mutiny.
-Once it’s clear that there’s an agreement, supported by the majority in the Knesset and the public, a large portion of the settlers will be willing to leave. After it becomes clear that the withdrawal is going to happen, and the government declares that after a certain date Israeli services will cease – no
schools, health care, police, whatever- almost all will be willing to leave.
-The agreement may provide for a limited, fair , territorial exchange.
-There could be an option for settlers to stay, if they pledge to become loyal, law-abiding citizens or residents in the Palestinian State. The Algerian independence treaty provided an option for the French settlers to remain, unharmed. They all left, anyway.
>> The Jewish people have the right to a Jewish State, Jewish and democratic. The Palestinian people also deserve the same right to a state of their own.
Palestinian nationality is (or should be) a secular nationality, just like Canadian, French, German and (presumably) Israeli.
What secular nationality is “Jewish state”? Can any non-Jew living in or moving to “Jewish state” acquire a secular Jewish nationality? If ‘no’, then “Jewish state” is a supremacist state. If ‘yes’…well, then, I really need an explanation as to how a Catholic or a Muslim or a Hindu can also be Jew. (That is to say, does Judaism allow for Catholic-Jews, Muslim-Jews and Hindu-Jews?)
And this of course highlights the distortion and corruption that Zionism has wrought on the Jewish identity. Is it a race? Only when Zionist need to appropriate language applied to accusations of racism against Jews; as soon as non-Jews use the same terminology in a different “non-approved” context, they are labeled anti-Semites. Is it a religion? Ask a self-identified secular Jew. Is it an ethnicity? Yes, but then ethnicities aren’t explicitly afforded a right to an ethnic-exclusive state (you know, kind of like what Nazi Germany had striven to be…) Is it a nationality? Because if it is, that automatically makes Jews outside of Israel dual-citizenship (which of course, many Zionists do in fact argue). I dare say most American Jews would balk at that, though. And rightly so. They don’t have Israeli passports as well as US ones.
The problem is that Zionists will pick up, shuffle, and deal out a different hand of taxonomy every time they need to change the semantics to bias the language of the discussion in favor of whatever argument they are using at any particular moment. Heck, and we’ve even seen Zionists rotate definitions in the same argument as you scroll down the thread.
By my estimation, for what it’s worth, I would say “Jewishness” is a religion and an ethnicity. It can’t be a nationality, certainly not in modern, wholly secular terms. It’s definitely an ethnicity because there are customs and a cultural identity that, while derived from the original religious context, can and do exist independently of it (and hence, secular Jews). And also, ethnicities aren’t rigid, legal definitions the way nationalities are (Iranian Jew, Arab Jew, African American, Pennsylvania “Dutch,” etc.)
Chaos denies Jewish nationalism, because if he would recognize it , he would have to admit that Jews can also have a nation-state, like other nations. However, Chaos, it’s not your call. I wouldn’t presume to tell other people that they are or are not a nation so who are you to determine that the Jews don’t qualify?
>> … Jews can also have a nation-state, like other nations.
Which, again, raises the questions I raised in my previous post (April 22, 2011 at 10:10 pm):
1. What secular nationality is “Jewish state”?
2. Can any non-Jew living in or moving to “Jewish state” acquire a secular Jewish nationality?
a) If ‘no’, then “Jewish state” is a supremacist state (unlike other secular democratic nations).
b) If ‘yes’, please explain how a Catholic or a Muslim or a Hindu can also be Jew.
I hope you’ll take the time to answer them. Thanks.
1. What secular nationality is “Jewish state”?
What is secular nationality?
2. Can any non-Jew living in or moving to “Jewish state” acquire a secular Jewish nationality?
See question 1.
a) If ‘no’, then “Jewish state” is a supremacist state (unlike other secular democratic nations).
b) If ‘yes’, please explain how a Catholic or a Muslim or a Hindu can also be Jew.
Being Jew essentially means worshiping Almighty Creator and no other God OR to be born to Jewish parents (with some limitations)
The moment Jew starts worshiping any other god he stops being Jew.
So the answer to you question is that no one can be *at the same time* Jew and Catholic or Muslim or, G-d forbid, Hindu, while anyone is free to became Jew.
Your damn right I deny Jewish nationalism. It created a racist, apartheid state that breeds Arab-hating sociopaths. The same reason I deny so-called Aryan nationalism.
Eljay, I think I did answer you before on this.
The nationality of the majority is Jewish (like Italian in Italy and so forth).
Any non-Jew who so wishes can apply for citizenship, or can convert and become Jewish.
“Jewish State “means that the majority culture is Jewish. If that means supremacist, then so are all the nation-states in the world.
As long as the non-Jewish minority enjoys equal rights, there’s nothing wrong with that.
A believer in other faiths can’t be simultaneously Jewish.
Lightbringer, I disagree with your definitions. There are atheist Jews. I also don’t like bigotry, even towards Hindus.
The nationality of the majority is Jewish (like Italian in Italy and so forth)
spare us, it is in no way “like Italian in Italy”.
Jon s, the non-Jewish minority in Israel do not enjoy equal rights. Are you implying that there is a separation of religion and state in Israel as there is, most especially in the USA, and in Canada, and also similar to such separation in Western European democratic states? Or are you just talking about food and music?
“God forbid, Hindu”??? Screw you, bigot.
“even towards Hindus”?? How mighty white of you. [/sarc]
You gotta hand it to the Hindus. They didn’t implement the disease of monotheism, one of the 10 worst ideas ever. Curse always the morons who first thought it up, and every person who helped spread that cancerous idea.
So, jon, doesn’t your definition automatically obligate Jews born in America or Europe or elsewhere as citizens of your “Jewish nation?” Doesn’t that pretty much reinforce the old Nazi anti-Semitic belief that stated, “Jews can never be loyal to their home country and their home country alone because they have national loyalty outside of their home country?”
Seriously? That’s a Nazi belief. I’ve never read it it but I assume it’s featured somewhere in the Elder Protocols of Zion too, considering. Why are you trying to make Nazi propaganda and other anti-Semitic hate speech against Jews true with your words? There are plenty of Jews who don’t want Israeli citizenship. There are (it may surprise you) Jews who actually would side with the US sailors over the Israeli attackers when it comes to the USS Liberty. Or perhaps more aptly, with Emily Henochowitz or Hedy Epstein over IDF goon squads.
And therefore can’t have full citizenship in your “Jewish” nation. Tell me another nation in the world that requires you to turn apostate to gain citizenship? Saudi Arabia, I suppose, and I will happily put Israel and Saudi Arabia in the same category of state.
“And therefore can’t have full citizenship in your “Jewish” nation. Tell me another nation in the world that requires you to turn apostate to gain citizenship?”
Wrong.
There is followers of numerous faith in Israel, including Druze and Hindu, and they all have same ID cards and could equally elect and be elected.
Since no other nation gave birth to two (2) world’s most important religions I don’t really see why general rules should apply.
BZZZT! False.
link to dissidentvoice.org
As for what you just said…
So you are proclaiming that the “Jewish nation” is above international law? That human rights conventions cannot and will not be enforced by Israel?
No. One world important religion – Christianity – and one minor one.
Well, Woody T, there’s a certain cunning sick vanity about the notion of monotheism, if that is actually a Hebrew creation. To say there is only one G-D, and that G-D has chosen the Jewish people to hold the enlightening flashlight in the dark world created by man using his G-D ordained free choice by eating the apple of knowledge, the nations of priests holding flashlights so we barren ones can see, the only decent shoe cobbler in town to repair the world of shabby shoes, I mean that’s like a Saturday Night Live skit, isn’t it? Do our self-help salesmen live in “a shack, down by the river?” The simple and logical notion of a single first cause of everything always beckons, so why should anyone cede that position to G-D? And, if your group owns recognition of God because God is silent and invisible, and you first pointed God out, why, who can protest what you do here on earth? I’m thinking of inventing the notion that the single god that the Jews say they invented is a patent that cannot hold up because it’s racially/ethnically discriminatory. And the ruse, that aspect of this patent that being chosen is actually a net burden rather than a discriminatory claim of superiority that has worked exceedingly well in this material world considering the fact that Jews are few world wide, is a net benefit that should no longer be enabled. As Obama says, time to spread the wealth.
Yeah, G-d forbid.
You see, should Jew convert into Christianity or Islam, since they both worship basically the same G-d it’s not a mortal sin and convert stays more or less Jewish.
But polytheistic Hinduism is a totally different story – one who leave Judaism for Hinduism technically stops being Jewish and will have to be converted back by procedure called “Giyur” which takes at least one year with no guaranteed result.
Are you talking notes, jon? I am.
Citizen , the Hebrews may or may not have been the first monotheists . Some credit the Egyptian Pharoah Akhenaten (Amenhotep IV). In any case believing in one God, one common Father , implies that all men and women are brothers and sisters.
My notes don’t talk.
I said this once before. The Reform Rabbi that taught my course in Jewish Culture Studies way back when the US was caught up in Vietnam (1969), taught that Judiasm was “a portable culture.” His class covered the whole historical time line. His approach was big on Hegalian dialetics. And its intersection with Maimonides. I might have been the only goy in the class. The Orthodox jews sat in the front rows.
Lightbringer,
Your religious nonsense and superstitions is no excuse to be a bigot.
I recommend a dictaphone, then.
The belief that ALL men and women are made in the image of G-d, and thus equal, is found in West Semitic religions and not just in Judaism.
Many Jews do presume to tell the Palestinian people that there are not and never will be a nation.
“Jews have blue IDs, Palestinians either Israeli-issued orange ones (in Hebrew) or nearly identical Palestinian Authority-issued green ones with a PA seal on top”
In fact you are misinformed.
Blue ID’s carry those holding Israeli citizenship, disregarding of their ethnicity – Israeli Jews, Israeli Arabs, Druze, Russians and all the rest.
link to en.wikipedia.org
Nope. I’m proclaiming that every nation, including Jewish, has right for self-determination on issues considered vital by the nation.
For example – those looking to get US citizenship have to learn English language and US history as part of their course of becoming USA citizens.
“In any case believing in one God, one common Father , implies that all men and women are brothers and sisters.”
Not necessarily. It CAN, but not necessarily. First, not every religion would see the paramount god as a Father, or even a male. Further, not every religion would WANT to see all men and women as brothers and sisters; some are very tribal.
But what monotheism pretty much guarantees is that the idea of there being one true god means one true way to worship and from that religious warfare is not far behind.
>> The nationality of the majority is Jewish (like Italian in Italy and so forth).
In Canada, France and Germany, the nationality of all – not just a majority of – citizens is Canadian, French and German. This is not at all like “Jewish state”.
>> Any non-Jew who so wishes can apply for citizenship, or can convert and become Jewish.
Any Jew or non-Jew who applies for citizenship to Canada, France or Germany and acquires it becomes Canadian, French or German. No religious conversion is required.
Similarly, if a Jew or a non-Jew applies for citizenship to “Jewish state” and acquires it, he must surely become (nationally) Jewish. What, then, is the point of a religious conversion? Are you suggesting that non-Jews who do not undergo religious conversion are not (nationally) Jewish citizens of “Jewish state”?
>> “Jewish State “means that the majority culture is Jewish. If that means supremacist, then so are all the nation-states in the world.
At first, the majority nationality was Jewish. Now it’s the majority culture. But then there’s the issue of conversion, which implies religion, because people don’t undergo “conversion” to nationalities or cultures.
Clearly, “Jewish state” is not at all like Canada, France or Germany. “Jewish state” is Jewish religion-supremacist. It is not secular, democratic and egalitarian. Surrounding it with words like “nationality” and “culture” don’t disguise that fact.
Since no other nation gave birth to two (2) world’s most important religions
And what might those religions be that were spawned since 1948?
Blue ID’s carry those holding Israeli citizenship, disregarding of their ethnicity – Israeli Jews, Israeli Arabs, Druze, Russians and all the rest.
This is what is called a disingenuous white lie. The cover color of the ID might be blue, but inside it each holder’s nationality is clearly identified, including “Jewish.” This is well explained on this blog – despite its somewhat bizarre-o appearance:
Here is the Population Registry Law:
As you might imagine, it doesn’t take much brains to coordinate the “ethnicity” to the “identity number,” such that there is a clear “code” for who’s who (if one should be needed beyond the “Nationality” line in the ID). Consequently, any minor security dude in Israel knows full well how to look at an ID and determine the ethnic origin of the person they are dealing with. It happens at Tel Aviv airport about once a second. Your blue ID doesn’t help you in the least there… Here are some stories to attest.
Story 1
Story 2
Story 3
Since 2005 nationality is no longer identified in ID card.
As of determining who is who – a look in the face and a word of two spoken is enough in most cases.
I myself capable of identifying whether I’m speaking to Druze, Jaffa Arab or Hebron Arab, even if we are speaking in Hebrew of English.
Well it might not be printed in the ID card but, the fact that one is Jewish is still discernible from the date of birth being entered according to the Hebrew calendar. Beyond which, as far as I know, there was no general requirement for everyone with IDs from before 2005 to trade them in so most folks still have the identifier in their IDs anyway.
Also, recall that the ethnic or national identity is still on file with the initial registration. I would bet my bottom dollar that there is some simple coding in the ID number that effectively identifies nationality to those who “know” it. I don’t have proof of this at the moment, but perhaps some Israelis here can speak to it. This is typically how everything in Israel works – you have to be placed in a category in order for the authorities to “know” how to deal with you.
I’ve no doubt that you rely heavily on “judging a book by its cover.”
Date of birth in Hebrew is typed for everyone, Jews and Goyim alike.
Although ID number indeed has some additional value encoded to it, for example all ID given before 1991 or so have had only 5 to 7 digits while modern ID’s have 9 digits, it is unknown to me what else is encoded in the number. Even though it’s quite likely that nationality is somehow encoded, it might be not because it’s not really needed.
P.S. Every authority in every country have to categorize before knowing how to deal with one.
Every authority in every country have to categorize before knowing how to deal with one.
but every country doesn’t have a nationality law that divides people into different categories for the purpose of excluding them in apartheid laws that only pertain to those who the nationality law elevates.
P.S. Every authority in every country have to categorize before knowing how to deal with one.
WRONG, wrong, wrong. Not in my country.
As for date of birth in Hebrew, I can only cite wikipedia here unfortunately.
Well, since you have no doubt already, you’ve mastered the art of “judging a book by its cover.”
So you are lucky enough to represent 3% of world’s population.
Applause.
“Currently, whether a citizen is Jewish or non-Jewish can in some cases be determined by checking whether the Hebrew date of birth appears in addition to the civil date. ”
I’ve personally checked few ID’s belonging to non-Jewish (and non-Arab) residents. All of them have had both birth dates printed.
I’ll check Arab’s ID once I’ll got a chance.
Did we get it that the reason that nationality was dropped from the IDs was NOT to protect people from being discriminated against (G-d forbid, LOL) but rather to allow the Minister of Interior to avoid even the possibility of “tainting” the Jewish population of the country with some non-Jews who somehow were able to register themselves as Jews? Are we seeing this picture clearly now? / snark
and you would be wrong on 2 parts jews aren’t a nation and nations don’t have the right to self determiantion or more accurately nations for self determiantion aren’t defined that way. they are defined according to terriory so as not to have multiple “nations” from have the right in the same place.
We got facts.
As of their interpretation – opinions are not facts.
Besides, I don’t see how nationality shown on ID might “taint” some Jew.
Before or after you kick his family out of their house with a “Jews only” permit from the Israeli government? Hey, maybe the apartment across the hall from Ethan Broner, NYT “journalist” is open!
Jews have common language, culture and history. These are definitions of nation.
Nations for determination are defined every way possible.
You really should study more international conflicts.
Start with Georia-South Ossetia
Lightbringer:
1. An example of secular nationality is the USA’s designation of US citizen.
2. Doesn’t being a Christian or Muslim mean worship of Almighty Creator and no other God? So, your distinction is reduced to a Jewish family (ethnic) blood line (“with some limitations”). You do recognize Jews do not seek converts to Judiasm, and make it hard for them to convert, I am guessing. And converts are not accepted as fully Jewish by various orthodox and more conservative branches of Judiasm.
Looks to me like your definition of a Jew is mostly in fact a tribal one not unlike say, those native inhabitants of the Amazon rain forest.
The problem is that minority already lives in Israel, and it does no have equal rights, e.g. the destruction of Bedouin villages.
Citizen
1 – Secular nationality is Israel is Israeli.
Like USA where live African Americans, Latinos, WASPs, Indians, Russians and whoever else, in Israel lives Jews, Arabs, Africans – Somalians, Ethiopians and a whole bunch more.
2 – Although Christians and Muslims worship same Almighty Creator as Jews, and follow more or less same commandments, there is very strong principal distinctions between these religions.
For example Christians think that Messiah already came, and should be back sometime, Muslims think that it actually was not Messiah but just another prophet, and Jews know that it was neither prophet nor messiah.
Jews do not seek converts to Judaism, and make it quite hard to convert, ensuring only most determined ones might pass all exams, and even after passing exams alleged convert 3 (three) times in a row is asked to change his mind and not to convert.
However reasons behind it are much more complicated that it might seem.
As of Ultra-Orthodox not accepting well converts – these guy are not accepting well even Jews from other Orthodox branches, let alone secular Jews.
You know, 3000 years ago to became a Jews all that needed was to circumcise and accept Almighty Creator with all heart, so this is pretty much the definition. All the rest is of little importance.
Do you have a list of destroyed Bedouin villages within last 10 years?
This has not always been true. Judaism used to be a missionising religion, including forced conversion, and of course Chabad are a missionising branch of Judaism, trying to convert non religious Jews.
Do you accept that it is possible to convert to Judaism without stating whether or not one is religious, as allowed by Humanistic Judaism?
Why 10 years? You can easily find examples if you want.
‘Bulldozers returned to the village of al-Araqib in the northern Negev on Wednesday, 4 August, and demolished approximately ten new structures residents and supporters had built a week after Israeli forces completely destroyed the village on 27 July.’
‘Hundreds of Bedouin Palestinians, who hold Israeli citizenship, were made homeless last week after Israeli police, supported by bulldozers, helicopters and busloads of cheering Israeli civilians, razed the entire village to the ground.’
‘On Tuesday, 3 August, Israeli forces invaded and demolished several other smaller Bedouin villages in the Negev.’
link to electronicintifada.net
“Do you accept that it is possible to convert to Judaism without stating whether or not one is religious, as allowed by Humanistic Judaism?”
Not an incisive enough question. To convert, one must usually study for about a year and affirm that they will keep the mitzvot. The Reform and Conservative standards are more liberal than this, but it’s basically the same idea.
As far as humanistic Judaism goes, I suppose one can convert to it, but it is a conversion that would probably not be recognized by most other Jews.
I’ve got to say, though, that core tenets of humanistic Judaism stands in direct contradiction to what Judaism is. From its description, which affirm the right of Jews to live without G-d, it sounds like humanism for people who like bagels and lox. Religion without believing in G-d or gods is a little silly, no?
Indeed, a long while ago – 2000-3000 years – Judaism was a missionising religion.
However around Babylon Captivity such practices were ceased.
You cant convert a Jew into a Jew. Religious or not.
Whatever Chabad doing is helping non-religious Jews to “get back to answer”
Since being Jew is mostly metaphysical condition and process – no, you can not.
>> 1 – Secular nationality is Israel is Israeli.
In this thread, and according to jon s, Israel is “Jewish state” and the “majority nationality” of Israel is Jewish. He doesn’t say what the “minority nationality” of Israel is. He also doesn’t explain why the nationality of every citizen in a secular, democratic and egalitarian Israel is not simply “Israeli”.
The problem here is that definition of “Nationality” and “Ethnicity” are vague.
Every single person who holds Israeli citizenship has secular nationality “Israeli”, pretty much as in USA it’s US Citizen.
At the same time Israelis might be of different ethnicities, just like Afro-Americans, Latinos, etc. in USA
Every single person who holds Israeli citizenship has secular nationality “Israeli”, pretty much as in USA it’s US Citizen.
pretty much? /not. the US doesn’t have apartheid laws that privilege some citizens based on how they attained their citizenship (check goi nationality law)
Do you have a list of such laws in Israel?
Every single person who holds Israeli citizenship has secular nationality “Israeli”, pretty much as in USA it’s US Citizen.
Wrong. Israel does not recognize an “Israeli” nationality on its ID cards, nor in its registry.
link to theonlydemocracy.org
So, after removing all compassionate fuzz what we have is illegal buildings demolition.
Basically Bedouins tried to set up a new village, without proper licenses.
And what exactly a State where to do?
check out Israeli-Palestinian Conflict 101
Do you have a list of such laws in Israel?
See here:
link to old-adalah.org
and here:
link to kibush.co.il
And here’s two new ones, just recently passed within the last few weeks:
link to fmep.org
And again …
The problem here is that definition of “Nationality” and “Ethnicity” are vague.
Every single person who holds Israeli citizenship has secular nationality “Israeli”, pretty much as in USA it’s US Citizen.
At the same time Israelis might be of different ethnicities, just like Afro-Americans, Latinos, etc. in USA
P.S. I haven’t noticed anyone complaining about same issue in Russia.
Hypocrisy? Antisemitism? What else?
Do you have a list of such laws in Israel?
here’s a fun link from haaretz Religious MKs reject inclusion of ensurance of equality, saying it would contradict Judaism.
there is more on the discussion of unequal under the law here. which reminds me how much i miss taxi.
Lightbringer…
Evidently you have never read Sholom Sand’s “The Invention of the Jewish People”…you should so you will see what nonsense you are spouting. Jews are a religion, not a ethnic or distinict people and they had no ‘nationality’ until Israel was created in 1948.
But you know I have been around this issue for so long that sometimes I just don’t want to into lengthy responses and would rather distill it to the bottom line.
And the bottom line is, the total population of humans on the planet Earth, is currently estimated to be 6.91 billion by the United States Census Bureau.
Only 11 million are Jews and only 6 million are Israelis.
There are 1.9 billion Muslims, a billion or more Catholics, more billions are various Christian faiths , another billion divided between other faiths.
And you and the Jewish State are pissing them all off.
Good damn luck with that.
>> Every single person who holds Israeli citizenship has secular nationality “Israeli”, pretty much as in USA it’s US Citizen.
>> At the same time Israelis might be of different ethnicities, just like Afro-Americans, Latinos, etc. in USA
Fair enough, and thanks for the clarification.
Now, Richard Witty (as just one example) believes that – unlike the USA or Canada or France or Germany – Israel should be a “Jewish state” with a legally-enshrined, permanent-majority status for Jews. He’s stated that he would be prepared to see the borders of Israel re-sized, if necessary, to exclude non-Jewish Israeli citizens whose presence would threaten that Jewish majority status.
In other words, he has no issue with stripping legitimate Israeli citizens of their citizenship – essentially a bureaucratic ethnic cleansing – in order to preserve a Jewish majority in the “Jewish state” of Israel.
(Supporting links: -1- | -2-)
What’s your take on this? Thanks.
“Evidently you have never read Sholom Sand’s “The Invention of the Jewish People”…you should so you will see what nonsense you are spouting. Jews are a religion, not a ethnic or distinict people and they had no ‘nationality’ until Israel was created in 1948.”
Evidently Shlomo Sand (who is not an expert) is the only person ever to write anything on this issue, because he is the only one any of you ever cite for Jewish history.
“Only 11 million are Jews and only 6 million are Israelis.”
It’s actually 16 million. But go on.
“There are 1.9 billion Muslims, a billion or more Catholics, more billions are various Christian faiths , another billion divided between other faiths.
And you and the Jewish State are pissing them all off.”
I’m glad we have the real meaning behind anti-Israel sentiments – there are simply more of them than there are of us, and as we all know, justice is what the majority wants. It’s nice to see someone support my arguments on this issue.
I think the 1.9 billion Muslim figure is a bit high.
Lightbringer, why is nationality not given as Israeli on Israeli ID card? Why is ethnicity given instead?
A German ID card lists nationality as German, and a French one shows French. An American passport or state drivier’s license does not show ethnicity.
“… countries are actually shifting away from listing race on identity cards. While over 100 countries do have a national identity card, only about 20 countries list a person’s race or ethnicity and the number listing race seems to be declining.” link to singaporekopitiam.sg
Citizen
There is no ethnicity on ID cards since 2005
And on passport there is only nationality – Israeli
I’ve seen the book.
Nothing really worth reading.
This Shlomo dude have had missed (or voluntarily avoided?) one extremely important issue: Jews – both male and female – do have distinct facial features.
Also, he saying that Jew is a religion, not nationality or ethnicity.
True.
So basically you are denying certain religious group a right for self-determination.
As of those we’re pissing off – bring ‘em on. Just make sure no-one runs away when it get too hot.
Tree,
Meanwhile I’ve got through this one – link to old-adalah.org
Well, it’s 20% facts, 30% distorted facts and 50% blatant lie.
P.S. There is no such ethnicity or nationality – “Palestinian”
…Witty? Is that anti-Semitic? Let me know, would you?
P.S. There is no such ethnicity or nationality – “Palestinian”
how does this stuff make it thru moderation?
Jews – both male and female – do have distinct facial features.
we’ve caught ourselves a live one. wanna place bets how long he’ll last here?
i’ll wager a virtual hug he won’t last a week.
“So basically you are denying certain religious group a right for self-determination.”
Of course. Relgious groups do not have that right. Insofar as there is such a right, it is a right of all the inhabitants of a particular territory, regardless of their religion, ethnicity, or hobbies.
i think he is confusing desire for right.
If only I could claim a right to the things I desire!
The Israeli passport contains the persons religion, that is the point.
Yuk. Isn’t this anti Semitism of the worst kind? Didn’t the Nazis use exactly this argument?
Actually Jews come in all colours shapes and sizes.
common language and history as shared through the FAITH. culture not so much.
by your logic a french catholic, polish catholic, and mexican catholic are all part of the same culture.
Because it’s a fact.
RoHa
I’m not sure which planet you are talking about, however here, on Earth (you know, third planet orbiting yellow dwarf on outskirts of Milky Way galaxy) the situation is slightly different.
Do you have a definition for “right” ?
Specifically, who gives it.
pjdude
Common language, history, culture and faith.
Obviously, french, polish and mexican catholics share a great lot of same culture.
Much more than, say, polish catholic and russian orthodox.
yesspam
No, it does not.
Arguably the same sort of history as the “Anglophone” world……..the divisions between us are really quite minor.
Israeli-Palestinian-Druze-Bedouin-etc citizens all have the same ID cards.
The orange (now defunct) and green IDs are for the OT Palestinians.
East Jerusalem Palestinians and Golan Druze have IDs like Israeli citizens.
Your “facts” are corks, oh bringer of light.
Citizen April 25, 2011 at 11:26 am
Your “facts” are corks, oh bringer of light.
Prove me wrong.
prove you wrong? which one of the 50 posts over the last day should we start with?
Obviously, french, polish and mexican catholics share a great lot of same culture.
obviously! let’s make them a new nation so they can self determine some other culture out of their homeland!
“I’m not sure which planet you are talking about”
I am not sure what you are talking about, but if it is the right of self-determination. present an arguemt to show that it belongs to religious group rather than to the inhabitants of a territory.
I refer to Sand’s book for good reason….and it is praised by ‘real’ historians for good reason.
I don’t know if you have ever studied ancient history but I have (decades ago I admit) and if you had you would understand that what Sand posits about the creation or formation of the Jews parallels exactly the actual and accepted history of ME tribes and conversions and migrations and emigrations beginning after the Iron Age and particularly starting about 1000 BC when some tribes discovered cultivation and went to farming and wandering nomads would join settled farming tribes and most often ‘convert’ to be part of a settlement. There is a lot more to the tracing of how Judaism spread and how peoples joined or left Judaism (or Islam for that matter) to survive the various conquest of so many conquers in the ME naturally. It is impossible for there to be any ‘pure Jews as distinct as a people’ from other Semites in any way except religion. And as said, religion was often given up for the sake of survival to join whatever religion of a group that offered a ‘camp’ or established settlement or the protection of numbers. To say nothing of how the European and Asian Jews came about.
This was my opinion way before Sand wrote his book, based on my understanding of ancient history. Its ‘ just convenient to have a noted intellectual like Sand actually bring it all together based on real history. ..instead of me just saying it.
Bottom line, the many myths about Jews put out by the zionist are contridicted by the actual historical facts and events…they simply cannot be true.
Ah, Lightbringer…if you are sincere that you are either very young or very delusional………..you don’t know how the world works.
If enough of the world is against you, you won’t last….that is just a fact of life. When you go too far against what the majority of the world is willing to tolorate, as the Germans did in WWII, the world will put you down…and you are much smaller than the Germans.
Your mode of zionist ‘self determination’ is to “challange or dare the world” to “correct” you ….and that is a fatal mistake.
The others here have got be right about you, you must be a joker.
All Jews have similar facial features????
My Ph.D. is in Classical Philology (Greek and Latin,) and my graduate studies largely revolved around Greco-Roman history, especially epigraphy (inscriptions).
During those graduate studies, I encountered a lot of evidence that Judaism was a proselytizing religion under the Romans (just as Sand argues in his book). If Judaism won a lot of converts then, then to that extent Jews are not descended from the ancient Hebrews.
Sand of course discusses this at length in his book.
“self determine some other culture out of their homeland!”
It have happened in the past, countless times, it will happen in the future, countless times.
Whats the fuss?
hm
Present an argument to show that it DOES NOT belongs to religious group rather than to the inhabitants of a territory.
So you have no argument to support your claim.
Here is one to show that it belongs to the inhabitants of a territory.
The right in question is the right to set up a state. The principle you claim is, roughly, that a religious group has a right to establish a state.
But a state can only be set up on a particular territory. (Try to conceive a sovereign state without a territory!)
Thus, if a group has a right to establish a state, it has a right to a territory.
But if the territory is already populated by people who are not members of the group, it can only be at the expense of the self-determination of the inhabitants of that territory.
Thus, the right can only apply to religious groups who are already the majority population of a territory.
This means that the right is, in fact, the right of the inhabitants of the territory.
Now let’s see you produce an argument. If you can’t, stop making silly claims.
Lightbringer
“Jews have common language, culture and history. ”
Tell that to Chinese Jews, Japanese Jews, Jewish atheists, Muslim Jews, Christian Jews.
only in your haed. jewish history has major divisns based on location and culturally was wasn’t monolithic.
thank you for showing your idiocy. french, polish, and american catholics share very little culture why because un like jews religion to them isn’t the entirety of their basis. they shared very little dculture. in fact culturally a russian of an orthodox faith has more in common with a polish catholic than a french catholic or a mexican catholic. thank you for showing you think religioin determines culture( it doesn’t) and your general ignorace of the world.
And I deny Arabism, or wait actually I don’t. I won’t deny anyone their right of self-determination. It is quite racist when you think of it.
“Now let’s see you produce an argument. If you can’t, stop making silly claims.”
You have a point, however you should take into consideration the fact that there were Jewish presence in Palestine long before Zionists.
Now, you can come and say that their numbers were relatively small to Arab population, to which I answer that these numbers could’ve been much larger should Arabs have been less hostile.
link to en.wikipedia.org
“Arabism” being what, exactly? Great you pretend to deny this term you just made up.
From the Wiki:
link to en.wikipedia.org
Just how many Polish Catholics and Russian Orthodoxes do you PERSONALLY know ?
Judaism as understood by Zionists and the Orthodox doesn’t really allow for secular-Jews, and it certainly doesn’t allow for Humanist-Jews.
Wrong.
Jon explicitly disagrees with you, Lightbringer.
Not on this one
I’ll elaborate
“Judaism as understood by Zionists and the Orthodox doesn’t really allow for secular-Jews, and it certainly doesn’t allow for Humanist-Jews.”
1 – At it’s beginning Zionism was, and still is, a secular movement, with only small fraction of it being religious
2 – Some of Jewish Orthodox are Zionists, while others (Naturei Karta) are anti-Israeli.
3 – Understanding of Judaism by Zionists and/or Orthodox and/or by anyone else can’t allow or disallow secularity and such.
4 – Implying that Judaism does not allow humanity is racist and profaning, which is it’s going to be reported to moderator.
A secular movement that believes in a God-given right to Jerusalem, huh?
That believes in historic facts to be exact.
Yest.
You clearly do not know much about Judaism. Humanistic Judaism is a branch of Judaism. You do not have to believe in G-d to convert to HJ. Such a convert will not be accepted as Jewish by any branch of Orthodox Judaism that I know off.
Please tell me which ‘historic facts’ show that Jerusalem ‘belongs’ to anybody, (as opposed to ‘used to be occupied by.’)
Lightbringer, please bring us more light. The rabbi that taught me about Judaism taught that Judaism was “a portable culture.” Are you saying it’s profane to be critical of Jewish culture, whether in the USA, or, e.g., in Israel or the OT? I really need your input because I’m a mere Gentile, and I’ve been told I have a very modest animal soul by the Talmud, and my animal-dumb questions don’t appear to be answered by the Noahide laws in terms of living my actual life and putting myself forward as to what I see in the world that I don’t like. I’ve not found the Catholic priests very informative, and the Orthodox Jews’ opinion leaves much to be desired by someone like me. What should I do if saving Anne Frank would mean the death of my own family?
Lightbringer,
Here are your “historic facts to be exact.” Right out of the ground after a century of digging. Hard proof.
Deconstructing the Walls of Jericho
< I’ve been told I have a very modest animal soul by the Talmud, .
I thought that it was the Tanya that said that Gentile souls were not the same as Jewish souls.
Judaism is not culture. Surely one could be critical of Judaism yet such critics will have no sense until the critic learns at least some Judaism, say reading entire Torah with someone proficient in Judaism at least once.
Then try these on for size, lightbringer:
link to is.gd
link to is.gd
Opinions are not facts.
Archaeology is not opinion. It’s evidence.
4 – Implying that Judaism does not allow humanity is racist and profaning, which is it’s going to be reported to moderator.
Press the button! Press the button!
Oh yeah, yesspam wrote “Humanist-Jews.”
Opinions are not facts. Lightbringer, you wanted someone who “learns at least some Judaism, say reading entire Torah with someone proficient in Judaism at least once.”
Right?
Here you go: link to is.gd
Evidence is whatever you dug out.
And interpreting what exactly you’ve got is expressing opinion.
great link to the american council of judaism mrw
sounds like
A THREAT FROM WITHIN: A CENTURY OF JEWISH OPPOSITION TO ZIONISM,
by Yakov M. Rabkin
might be an interesting read.
bookmarked
Doesn’t that make the Torah a mere opinion, by your definition, Lightbringer?
Oh yeah, Lightbringer, just look at the scads of archeological evidence of the antique Jewish Kingdom. Why, there’s enough to sink a mote.
Rubbish. Judaism is the culture and history of the Jewish people. Torah and religion is only a part of Judaism. Millions of Jews are not religious. Since the Torah is entirely based on the supernatural, it is not necessary to read a word before rejecting the whole basis of it.
You’re distorting the truth here. There are plenty of Jews who practice humanism. Just as there are plenty of Catholics and Muslims who practice it. None of the authorities in these religions would accept a RELIGIOUS MOVEMENT based around the idea that one need not believe in G-d.
annie April 23, 2011 at 11:45 pm,
I believe I’m remembering correctly that Professor Rabkin had a JDL contract put out on him in Canada because of his book; he’s from Montreal. (Canada, Toronto area specifically, is where all the JDL loons hightailed it after the FBI identified them as terrorists in the US 20 years ago. . . .but most Canadians don’t know that. Yet.)
Toronto area specifically, is where all the JDL loons hightailed it after the FBI identified them as terrorists in the US 20 years ago
yuk, poor canada
The Rabbi who taught me about Judiasm at university said Judiasm is “a portable culture.” He talked a lot about Maimomodies (sic) and Hegel. I am continually amazed by how you lay down assertive statements that are so much the subject of long time debate at the highest and most educated levels, Lightbringer. Do you live only in your own head?
‘Recent claims by an archaeologist working at the site regarding the supposed discovery of the palace of King David and the city-wall built by King Solomon are based on literal, simplistic readings of the biblical text and are not supported by archaeological facts. The supposed “palace” features walls from different periods, none dating — as far as I can judge — from the 10th century BCE. And the “wall” of Solomon cannot be considered a true fortification and cannot be dated as early as the 10th century BCE. ‘
‘The City of David’s archaeological park is administered and its monuments presented to the public by a nongovernmental organization with a decidedly right-wing political orientation. While this is a result of complications over land ownership at the site, a way must be found to allow state organizations, such as the Israel Antiquities Authority and the Israel National Parks Authority, to oversee the management of this sensitive place.’
Read more: link to forward.com
Did the German people have a right to a “German state”?
Really interesting, lysias, that nobody has answered your question. Maybe the answer is, a la Witty, that Germany has a right to be Germany as Germany. I have not figured out what Witty would have said to Hitler. Witty says whatever he wants, secure and protected by a state that is 98% non-Jewish. When people compare that protection to what Israel affords its protesters, his heartland, he is very dissembling.
What’s the states with the Germans in it called? France?
No, Germany.
What’s the state with the Israelis in it called? Saudi Arabia?
No, Israel.
>> What’s the states with the Germans in it called? France?
>> No, Germany.
>> What’s the state with the Israelis in it called? Saudi Arabia?
>> No, Israel.
That’s right, it’s called Israel, and not “Jewish state”.
Hophmi, the question went to the right to have a state, not the fact of a state. Perhaps you better read the question again.
Citizen,
Now that the state is created, does anyone have the right to take it away?
DBG, Israel has never fulfilled the promises it gave attendant recognition by the international organization. It also ignored Harry Truman’s edited and signed unilateral letter recognition. Rights come with obligations.
but the state of germany was named after the people. the reverse is true with Israel. your point is kind of weak.
yes the rightful residensts of palestine
by what law?
Obviously, Lightbringer, you don’t understand the comments responsive to yours, or you wouldn’t make such follow-up comments. You really need to be retrained in hasbara as you are making us think Israel’s defenders are… at the level of intelligence and education, the same as those Jerry Springer has on his seminal show.
“Jewish people have the right to a Jewish State”
No they don’t. What is the (moral) basis for this alleged right?
“The Palestinian people also deserve the same right to a state of their own.”
No they don’t. Same question.
“Given the high level of mistrust and hatred between the two peoples, throwing them together into one state would guarantee a bloodbath.”
I don’t think a bloodbath is guaranteed, but it is certainly possible that the Jews would slaughter as many Palestinians as they could. Why doesn’t Israel do anything to start establishing trust and reducing hatred? Even if there is to be a two state solution, that would be a good thing.
whats morally sound about telling people they don’t have their legally mandated rights so thieves can enjoy what they stole from them with a clean conscience?
“I’m convinced that 2 states is the only solution which is both morally sound…”
No! Really! Oh my God, how freakin noble of you! I’m stunned, I tell you. Oy, excuse me while I go fan my brow.
““And why do those of you who support the 2-state solution think it is self-evidently more practical, less utopian, then the 1-state solution?”
Why?
Are you daft?
A ‘One state’ would be a true ‘Apartheid state’. Or like the Jim Crow years in the US for blacks.
Arabs and Muslims are already discriminated against in Israel.
Who in their right mind thinks it wouldn’t be even worse if Palestine was taken in by and became Israel, the ‘ Jewish State.’
If the evangelical nutcases succeeded in declaring the US a “Christian State” and demanded it be “recognized” as such I would start a revolution or leave.
I can see some Israelis might like the one state idea….get all of Palestine land and all it’s resources and a large supply of Palestines as a second class citizens, under class of near slave labor…Greater Israel under a different ploy.
But for those less scurrilous types of pro Israelis who sincerely think this would be the solution for I/P, and even for the more scurrilous types, they need to remember that they would be outbred and out numbered in a few decades or less and then undoubtly face their own Arab Spring style revolt.
It’s funny that no one ever says there should be one state ..of Palestine….the pro Israelis always ‘assume’ that the one state would be Israel.
Yes, American, especially since the Brits never promised the Jews anything but a “homeland” within the Brit mandate, and that area promised was expressly conditional on the natives not losing any of their natural rights as natives.
not to mention as a class A mandate it was reconized the people of the territory and the right of sovriegnty to it
All this weeping over the fate of the settlers in the event of two states… It’s a false issue. Why not a single state in all of historic Palestine, one person, one vote, with the people pushed out since 1947 allowed to return? Of course the result might be an Arab majority. Horrors! In that case, the settlers who can get along with their neighbors will stay, the rest will leave.
“Why not a single state in all of historic Palestine”
Because there never was Palestinian state.
Region once called Palestine now is now divided into Jordan (Trans-Jordan Palestine) Israel, West Bank and Gaza.
Before that it was ruled by Judea and Israel kings, afterwards by Babylon, Greece, Rome, Arabs, Crusaders, Turks and Brits.
So really there is no historical reason for such state.
As of refugees return – I think that Palestinian refugees should all get back to their homes and have all damages retributed, as should have all Jews who have been expelled from Arab states.
The moment you could negotiate return of Jewish property stolen by Arabs, Israeli government will have to return Arab property stolen by Jews.
“I think that Palestinian refugees should all get back to their homes and have all damages retributed, as should have all Jews who have been expelled from Arab states.”
That’s fair, though I’m pretty sure you’re insincere. As Arab states democratize, they need to face up to the crimes committed at present or in their past.
And incidentally, it’s usually a bad sign when someone picks for himself or herself a grandiose title to use as a name.
So we’ll just wait until they give us what’s ours.
p.s. yeah, bad sign it is. light burns.
Seriously, this has got to be some anti-Semite masquerading as an Israeli. It’s hard to imagine any Jew with enough sanity to use a computer who would name himself after Satan.
ROFL
So… Hebrew “Satan” – which is actually a title, not a name, have been mixed with Greece “Prometheus”, who have brought fire (light) to people and was punished by Zeus, and with ancient Latin word “Lucifer” which was used to name what’s today is called Venus.
Keep it on, dude.
“So we’ll just wait until they give us what’s ours.”
Why? You seem to have some sort of weird ethical notion here involving collective guilt. Some Arabs in some countries mistreated Jews, so it’s okay for some Jews in another country to mistreat Arabs.
Which is about what I expect from someone who calls himself “lightbringer”. Seriously, people who give themselves that sort of name online always have deluded opinions of themselves, in my experience. So far you’re holding to the pattern.
“You seem to have some sort of weird ethical notion here involving collective guilt. Some Arabs in some countries mistreated Jews, so it’s okay for some Jews in another country to mistreat Arabs. ”
I think lightbringer is pointing out the hypocrisy of a movement that recognizes what they consider to be a dispossession without recognizing another dispossession (much more complete than the other one) that took place in the same region at the same time.
You’re referring to the one where the State of Israel bribed scores of Arab Jews to abandon their homelands to move to Israel to dig ditches and scrub toilets for the Ashkenazim colonists? Or are you referring to the Lavon affair, hophmi?
Nonono
State of Israel bribed governments of Arab countries, where Jews resided, to enforce them (Jews) to abandon houses and – by foot – walk to Israel.
Fine, Lightbringer, let’s employ your own logic and restrict the state of Israel to the territory once controlled by the Kingdom of Israel. If you can find it.
I swear – the people who promulgate this propaganda aren’t doing their cause any good. The parrots repeat it, and everyone just groans like an audience who hears the same joke a thousand times before.
link to upload.wikimedia.org
lol! luv those wiki references! you crack me up. have you read Defending the indefensible: Israel’s Wikipedia war ?
…which rather proves my point that Israeli war-mongering zealots will be crossing into and invading Lebanon and Jordan sooner than later.
i agree chaos, the die hards are not stopping w/the occupied territory. chabad has an entire other agenda in mind. others too presumably.
annie, we are not doing very well attracting the higher caliber zio-bots (assuming there’s some such). To wit, we now have one “lightbringer” – here is a sample from another thread:
“Poor little Syria has about 3 times as much population as Israel, yet much lower GDP. You know why? Because there is no Jews.
Mwahahahaha”
Deep, eh?
Not that I yearn for Witties or anything, but….that’s all they got in the cellar?
Perhaps too much time is being spent on engaging rationally with those whose mission is to provoke and to disrupt rather than to contribute to the discussion.
That’s cute, Lightbringer. Fantasyland lives!
Maybe you can explain how, in your fantasy world, the kingdom of Israel managed to conquer Sidon and Tyre, major cities of the Phoenicians, in what we now know as Lebanon.
Wrong again that is the mythological extent that has zero real proof. the real proof is far smaller than that. the untied monarchy and kingdom never existed.
Would that not make the Israelites imperialists and colonisers? I.e. what they complain that the Romans, Babylonians, Assyrians, did to them, they had already done to others? Add this to the conquest and forced conversion to Judaism under John Hyrcanus and it seems that the early Israelites were just as bad as every other imperial power.
Once I receive that time machine I’ve ordered from China I’ll be able to explain exactly what’ve happened.
For a meanwhile we’ll have to suffice using open sources.
There are ten Amarna letters dated 1350 BC from the mayor, Abi-Milku, written to Akenaten. The subject is often water, wood, and the Habiru overtaking the countryside, of the mainland, and how it affected the island-city.
link to en.wikipedia.org
Of what relevance is this to the thread? You are not one of those who confuses habiru with Hebrew, are you?
yesspam, nothing. it just gives him the opportunity to insert the wiki-zio-edits into the discourse. the source is eaton’s bible dictionary
It contains nearly 4,000 entries relating to the Bible, from a 19th century Christian viewpoint.
whatever
So you’ve been there and can testify that Habiru are not Hebrew?
Good, good.
Occupation is only applicable to condition when State A occupies territory of State B
Since there never were “Palestinian State” or “Palestinian Nation” or anything like that, the only areas Israel *occupies* is Golan Heights of Syria and Sheba Farms of Lebanon.
So what are you going to do to the Palestinians in the West Bank, Lightbringer? Tell us. What do you want to do to them?
What “Palestinians” exactly?
Arabs? Druze? Bedouin? Cherkes? Christians? Muslims?
Palestine does not need to be a ‘State’ – which is why we say ‘occupied territories’.
And anyway, your cynical use of the definition of Statehood is just the kind of red tape used to disguise the fact that a large number of non-Jews lived in that area and did not want a Zionist State.
Nationalism is not inherent. It’s a contrived identity. You make it up, as you go.
Did the concept of Israeli identity originate before dinosaurs? NO.
Is Israeli identity an element on the periodic table? Is it like water? Does it sustain life on Earth?
No. It’s an identity that humans make up because we’re social creatures and blah blah blah.
Zionists think that because there was no Palestinian ‘State’, that suddenly those people living there do not have rights or do not exist or are not people.
Sorry, but first of all, there are plenty of States that have come and gone and plenty of communities and peoples that have been annihilated. Cultures have been ‘lost’ or changed to the point where they become unrecognizable.
The POINT now is that there is a Palestinian people, they self-identify that way. Decades in the making. You are no one to tell them otherwise.
You leave yourself so wide open with such a stupid argument that I don’t know where to even begin.
Lightbringer, get some new material.
All of those groups can be Palestinian.
You fail.
Know what, go to Druze or to Cherkes, tell him that he’s Palestinian and make him agree with it.
If you’d make it back alive I’ll pay you $100
“Palestine does not need to be a ‘State’ – which is why we say ‘occupied territories’.”
Accordingly to international law, term “occupied” could only be used when State A occupies State B
No state – no “occupation”
“The POINT now is that there is a Palestinian people, they self-identify that way. Decades in the making. You are no one to tell them otherwise.”
Yep. Now. Not 60 years ago. Not 100 years ago. Now.
And now these people have to cope with reality.
Darkbringer, please furnish us with the archeological evidence for your recommended map. Thanks.
“Yep. Now. Not 60 years ago. Not 100 years ago. Now.”
It doesn’t matter whether there was a Palestinian State or a Palestinian identity. There were people living in Palestine. As natives, they had the right to live there. They wanted to go on living there. They were driven out by foreign immigrants.
“And now these people have to cope with reality.”
The reality is that the descendants of those immigrants are driving them out of more of the land.
Oh, but they weren’t too friendly, were they?
Once again – Palestinians were offered freaking STATE.
They rejected.
Now they ripe the fruit of stubbornness of their (late) leaders.
“Oh, but they weren’t too friendly, were they?”
A bunch of foreigners pour into your country and declare their intention of taking over and either expelling you or subjugationg you (and don’t try denying that they expressed such intentions) and you expect them to be given a friendly greeting.
“Once again – Palestinians were offered freaking STATE.
They rejected.”
They were told “Here, have part of your land, and see the rest taken over.”
The Palestinians HAD a state. German and Russian colonists took it from them.
Sorry to disappoint you, Chaos, but no, there never were Palestinian state.
And after 65 years of death and suffering they are about to agree to a much worse offer.
And who is to blame? Jews of course. Not their own Arab brethren, who promised swift victory but instead lost every possible conflict.
C’mon guys, if you can’t fight – don’t.
Sorry to disappoint you, Chaos, but no, there never were Palestinian state.
Sorry to disappoint you, Einstein.
From the time of Christ.
Asia Minor under the Greeks and Romans-Palestine
link to is.gd
The Assyrian Empire and the Region about the Eastern Mediterranean, 750-625 B.C.-Palestine
link to is.gd
[Palestine, Ancient] Palaestina from a classical atlas 1849
link to is.gd
Persian Empire about 500 B.C
link to is.gd
Reference Map of Ancient Palestine 1923
link to is.gd
No, any Jewish property stolen by Palestinians should be returned. The Palestinians are not responsible for anything that happened to Jews in any other country.
Why not?
They are speaking of Arab brotherhood, and such nonsense, so I don’t really see why they should not be treat as part of one nation.
How is your attitude any different from Hitler treating Jews anywhere in Europe in exactly the same way as you treat Arabs, Lightbringer?
Lightbringer is a racist.
What do children living in squalid refugee camps have to do with the Jews exiled from Arab lands 60+ years ago?
Nothing. It’s just ANOTHER dishonest Zionist tangent.
Hitler gassed and burned Jews Chaos, you are lying when you say that Arabs are being treated “the exact same way” You’d be better off comparing the conditions of Arabs in Libya and Syria. Those would be much closer in comparison, at least compared to the start of Hitler’s genocide against the Jews.
Why is this Nazi crap allowed on here?
No. Not a racist.
Fascist rather.
What’s interesting about these refugees, is that no host country have done anything to somehow relieve their fate.
Furthermore, their own representatives have done nothing, preferring armed resistance to peaceful living.
So the question is rather simple: If their own kin ignores their apparent needs, why should we care?
In a one state solution the host countries will have to take responsibility for them. There is no way the descendants of the Palestinian refugees will be able to immigrate to the new state.
Will Lebanon, Jordan and Syria be ready for an influx of millions of descendants of the Palestinian refugees?
There is no way the descendants of the Palestinian refugees will be able to immigrate to the new state.
oh reader of tea leaves
They rejected the state because it gave more land to the minority population of Jews. Israel’s right to exist is based on a UN vote. In September a UN vote will give Palestine the right to exist, on the ’67 borders. Get used to it.
Way to go, Darkbringer, since the Israeli leaders and AIPAC & friends always speak of Israel and the Jews as one, we should treat Israeli actions and voiced justifications for same as the collective intentional accomplishments and mouthpiece for all Jews in the whole wide world, including those in high places in the USA’s four branches of government. All Jews, says Lightbringer, should be treated as part of one nation. So let’s not hear anymore about
any Jew being a patriotic citizen of any nation outside Israel. Lightbringer says they are all part of his tribe, which is higher than any nation state in existence, except Israel as Israel, the self-proclaimed Jewish state.
we should treat Israeli actions and voiced justifications for same as the collective intentional accomplishments and mouthpiece for all Jews in the whole wide world
oh heavens no!
…we should treat Israeli actions and voiced justifications for same as the collective intentional accomplishments and mouthpiece for all Jews in the whole wide world…
Like you are not already.
yesspam April 25, 2011 at 11:49 am
They rejected the state because it gave more land to the minority population of Jews.
They rejected partition plan which gave them about 55% of the land, and now they are going to push for vote which at best would give them 30% of the land.
P.S. Green Line is the Armistice Line Israel and the Arab states agreed to after the War of 1948.
Calling it a “border” directly contradicts international law.
Describe even a single hour of its existence, Lightbringer, on which an independently recognized Israel existed solely within the borders and terms set out in the UN partition. Keeping in mind that population transfers were explicitly forbidden and so therefore Israel violated that right as soon as the first Palestinian village was razed and its occupants driven away.
“If their own kin”
You thinkall Arabs are a single family?
” ignores their apparent needs, why should we care?”
Because Israel caused those needs, Israel is morally obliged to meet them.
No, actually
Chicken swinger.
Your statistics are false. We all know that. Why do you care if the Palestinian state that will exist from September of this year is only 22 per cent of the total of what they are entitled to? Are you suggesting that Israel should give them more? If 22 per cent is enough to bring peace and security, then so be it.
Lightbringer
” They rejected the state because it gave more land to the minority population of Jews”
Sounds very reasonable…. How much did Israel pay for it BTW?
Owning ‘real estate’ by individuals and/or institutions, does not confer Sovereignty over territory. The tiny amount of ‘real estate’ owned by Jews and Jewish institutions was insignificant compared to the territory allotted for the Jewish Homeland State, completely gratis.
The Arabs States’ objections from the 1920′s were on legal grounds, not religious.
Partition without a referendum didn’t conform to the League of Nations Charter and later because it didn’t conform to the UN Charter on self determination for the people of Palestine, Jews Christians, Arabs, Muslims alike. There was never a referendum of the people of Palestine, Customary International Law since at least when the US legally annexed Texas.
The legal argument is reiterated in the Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine May 15th 1948, ( link to wp.me ) submitted to and accepted by the UNSC, without any resolution of condemnation, as a valid reason for regional powers attempting to oust Jewish forces already outside of Israel’s newly declared sovereign extent.
“They rejected partition plan which gave them about 55% of the land”
Great plan, even less than what was rightfully theirs. Israel took more..for peace I guess.
“and now they are going to push for vote which at best would give them 30% of the land”
That’s generous of them…. What has Israel ever conceded for peace?
“P.S. Green Line is the Armistice Line Israel and the Arab states agreed to after the War of 1948…. Calling it a “border” directly contradicts international law.”
Indeed. The actual borders are the same today as the day they were declared, May 15th 1948. link to wp.me
By default, Israel defined what wasn’t Israeli. I.e., What remained of Palestine.
Under International Law Israel has never legally annexed ANY territory. link to wp.me
Under International Law it is illegal to ‘acquire’ territory by war, offensive or defensive. A sovereign, e.g., Syria or Egypt, may however ‘restore’ their sovereign territory by war. link to wp.me
Israel has taken, given nothing, is still taking and negotiations mean only one thing. The Palestinians giving up even more of what is rightfully theirs for peace, in order that Israel keep what is not rightfully Israeli. To even agree to negotiate with Israel in order to have peace is incredibly generous of the Palestinians.
Talknic
“Israel has taken, given nothing, is still taking and negotiations mean only one thing.”
Now this statement in rather false.
Palestinian Arabs – both Israeli and not, enjoy quality of life much higher than population of all neighbor countries except Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Kuwait of course.
I do not have the luxury of time to extensively back up my words, so I’ll provide just one official document concerning child birth, death and some other rates on in miscellaneous Arab countries, including “Occupied Territories”
link to escwa.un.org
Dead-ass wrong: Before that it was ruled by Judea and Israel kings, afterwards by Babylon, Greece, Rome, Arabs, Crusaders, Turks and Brits.
Complete bullshit.
link to is.gd
What is wrong exactly?
Rule by Judea and Israel kings? Maybe.
Rule by Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Crusaders, Turks and Brits?
From link to is.gd
“It would, I suppose, be too much to expect Matt to grasp the concept that a discovery in 2005 trumps an article written in 1999. Still, I’ll have a go:
Matt, back in 1921 it was correct to say “No undisturbed royal burial has ever been found in Egypt.” In 1922 Tut’s tomb was found. After that date only a complete idiot would claim that no undisturbed royal burial has ever been found in Egypt – look, here are all these experts who said so back in 1921, 1920, 1919 and earlier.
The article you have quoted is an accurate (if biased) summary of the state of things in 1999. It says nothing whatsoever about the situation in 2006.
Ken Down”
link to freerepublic.com
MRW good link. That Mat guy seemed like my kind of scholar.
this may come as a shock to you but a poster on free rebublic is not a source. nor is ‘travelvideo.tv’.
Academic boycott, annie. There’s a good reason for it beyond morality, apparently.
Holy carp, this is embarrassing, isn’t it? It’s like being used to teaching high school and now we’re made to handle a kindergarten class.
link to historykb.com
Light, from your url source, “The earliest known extra biblical reference to Israel is the Merneptah
stele from about 1200 BC, where Pharaoh Merneptah claims he defeated
Gaza, Gezer, Yanoam, and Israel.”
So, what? All those cities were defeated by that Pharoh? That just means the city of Israel did not have the 98% goy USA nation funding its lethal enterprise.
I have to say it……no matter how often I see some Israeli activist like
lightbringer….. I am floored all over again, every time, at their total and utter ignorance of their own real history and all their zionist historical revisions.
What is worse, I think they believe all this inaccurate stuff they spout or maybe they just lie cause the truth doesn’t work for their agenda.
But whatever..it’s like they live in some alternate universe or on some other planet, planet Zio probably.
If you sent them back in a time machine to the actual history they are misrepresenting and made them experience it as it actually was they would still deny it.
Hopeless, totally hopeless.
“But whatever..it’s like they live in some alternate universe or on some other planet, planet Zio probably.”
It’s a self-created chemical messenger, like a hormone or adrenalin, called Ziocaine. They find the effects gratifying and become addicted. Higher and higher amounts of stimulation (and individuals, of course vary) is required to get the ziocaine flowing.
My research indicates that the overall effect on personality is similar to chronic abuse of alcohol and cocaine; grandiosity alternating with whiny paranoia, followed by amnesia, which means they come back and say the same things all over again tomorrow.
that’s bullshit born of ignorance, hatred, and bigotry. their is every historical reason for it. ie it is the true expression os self determiantion of the lagal resident of palestine. and transjordan is not palestine. the linking of the two shows your dishonesty.
Transjordan and palestine share same language, same people, same flag and same history.
They are not the same? OK.
Show me 10 differences.
no they don’t share the same people and history really are you truly that ignorant what is it with you bigoted zionists drones that makes you think the actions of the UK trump thousands of years of history. transjordan and palestine had never been linked and a single territorial unit until the british rule.
as for the flag really so do other countries poland and another country share the same flag I guess their same country. repeatingly mindless bigoted propaganda doesn’t make it fact.
yeah
right
link to en.wikipedia.org
link to en.wikipedia.org
link to en.wikipedia.org
link to en.wikipedia.org
link to en.wikipedia.org
link to en.wikipedia.org
link to en.wikipedia.org
Oh bringer of light, you forget this wiki:
Developments in Palestine between 1250 and 900 BC have been the focus of debate between those who accept the Old Testament version on the conquest of Canaan by the Israelite tribes, and those who reject it.[27] Niels Peter Lemche, of the Copenhagen School of Biblical Studies, submits that the biblical picture of ancient Israel “is contrary to any image of ancient Palestinian society that can be established on the basis of ancient sources from Palestine or referring to Palestine and that there is no way this image in the Bible can be reconciled with the historical past of the region.”[26]
Sites and artifacts, including the Large Stone Structure, Mount Ebal, the Menertaph, and Mesha stelae, among others, are subject to widely varying historical interpretations: the “conservative camp” reconstructs the history of Israel according to the biblical text and views archaeological evidence in that context, whilst scholars in the minimalist or deconstructionist school hold that there is no archaeological evidence supporting the idea of a United Monarchy (or Israelite nation) and the biblical account is a religious mythology created by Judean scribes in the Persian and Hellenistic periods; a third camp of centrist scholars acknowledges the value of some isolated elements of the Pentateuch and of Deuteronomonistic accounts as potentially valid history of monarchic times that can be in accord with the archaeological evidence, but argue that nevertheless the biblical narrative should be understood as highly ideological and adapted to the needs of the community at the time of its compilation.
link to en.wikipedia.org