Israeli threatens no ‘food, fuel, water, anything’ if occupied Palestinians seek statehood

Noam Sheizaf has a post with a video of Palestinian envoy Riyad Mansour breaking down in the Security Council here. The lines:

Why should the Palestinian people be forced to languish yet another year — or even one more day — under foreign occupation? They should not and they must not. This is the time to end the Israeli occupation. This is the time for Palestine’s independence. This is the time for Palestine and Israel to live side by side in peace and security, and this is the time for a new Middle East. We believe that the international community is ready for that, and we trust that the appropriate actions will be undertaken soon to make this a reality.

Why? Well Mr Mansour, Stewart Ain of the New York Jewish Week, tells you what Israelis are prepared to do to you if you push forward with this initiative:


“There is an undercurrent of what Israel would do if they went ahead with this,” [Gerald Steinberg, neocon and political science professor at Bar-Ilan University] said, referring to reports that the Netanyahu government was considering voiding the Oslo peace accord or annexing settlements. “I don’t think it’s serious but rather is part of the political theater going on — threat, counter-threat. It’s more directed at the Europeans and the UN than anybody else. … And the Palestinians may pull back at the last minute. It’s all part of the theater.”

Should Israel cancel the Oslo Accords, it would no longer be obligated to give the Palestinians food, fuel, water or anything, according to Mordechai Kedar, a lecturer in the Department of Arabic Studies and a researcher at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies.

“Israel could provide them whatever it wanted on an individual basis but not as a state in the making,” he said. “And they then could forget about the refugee issue and Jerusalem. They would have to live with what they had. In my view, Israel should let them create six city-states in the West Bank and Israel should stay in every area to make sure they don’t fall into the hands of Hezbollah or Hamas.”

“The minute the Palestinians go to the UN by themselves without Israel, they are abrogating the Oslo Accords, which clearly state that an agreement must be made by the two sides and that neither can go to an outside international body without the agreement of the other,” he added.

About Philip Weiss

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

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

  1. Here we get a measure of Israeli vindictiveness and determination that there will never be a Palestinian state worthy of the name. Talking of Oslo accords is also a measure of the deceit Israel is renowned for. They have never taken a blind bit of notice of them, have abrogated them time and time again, and couldn’t give a fig for any agreements in them. Yet Palestinians are supposed to obey them. What kingsize hypocrites, particularly as Palestine merely seeks to do what Israel did, by declaring a state at the UN. Israel has been waging war on Palestine since 1948 – their threat merely brings it out into the open. Gaza is taste of what they plan, UN or not.

    • eljay says:

      >> Here we get a measure of Israeli vindictiveness and determination that there will never be a Palestinian state worthy of the name. … What kingsize hypocrites …

      These are the Israeli “better wheels” on the chassis of the bus of deception that wobbles down the highway of supremacist colonialism.

      But it’s all Hamas’ fault.

    • James says:

      it is interesting to note how these fanatical zionists who wanted their own state are unwilling to acknowledge the displacement or worse – murder and abuse they have expressed towards the palestinians to get this, only for them to continue in the same fashion they have towards these same people who have had their land, or people essentially bulldozed under… what kind of fucked up country would respond over the course of a short history in this manner?

      • Dan Crowther says:

        Good question. Probably one that is still digging for King David’s tent city….how’s that going by the way? Nothing Yet? Rrrright.

        I know what Im gonna do, Im gonna write a book that says I am from somewhere in Massachusetts, and I was chosen by some arbitrary man in the sky as his “chosen person.” In the book, Im gonna mention that the man in the sky gave me exclusive rights to this land and therefore my descendants (no matter how distant) have exclusive rights as well. I bet in a few thousand years, I can parlay this book into a plush pad on Beacon Hill…….

        Why would anyone care what your book says, you ask? I havent figured that part out yet…..

        • eee says:

          You are a little late, check out “manifest destiny”.
          But as to why Jews can immigrate to Israel, the answer is simple, that is the law of the land. It is not related to any book. If you don’t like this law, you can try convincing Israelis to change it. Or you can attempt to use violence. It is up to you.

        • Dan Crowther says:

          manifest destiny was about westward expansion in the US – you have no clue about what your talking about. and manifest destiny was about as cool as cancer….(not very cool)

          Yea, and that law of the land has a biblical basis right? So, the world has to accept “your” book as fact, even if they dont believe in “your” God….. seems reasonable…..like I said, keep digging for that tent city.

        • Bumblebye says:

          eee
          The OPT are NOWHERE recognized as part of Israel. Israel’s only declared borders are the ’47 partition lines. The ethnic supremacist discriminatory “laws” are a travesty of real law, and can only be implemented with excessive military force, all of it illegal in international law. Israel is a pariah state of its own making, and its international situation will only get worse, Uncle Sam not withstanding.

        • Charon says:

          If the USA decided to partition Iraq and take over the Sunni part, put a white power symbol on the flag, called it Crackastan or something and said whites only, Arabs GTFO, and then tried to justify it by saying them is the rules and you can try to convince them to change it or use violence… I don’t think the world would put up with it.

          Why Israel has gotten away with it for so long is a mystery. Maybe it isn’t a mystery though. There was all that holocaust sympathy and Zionist Christian useful idiots blinded by vandalized Dispensationalist bibles along with bribes and threats from the Rothschilds. There is also that hidden cache of nukes that they have too. Legend has it that the first nuke is stamped with a seal that says “Never Again”. That explains everything. Delusional holocaust persecution paranoia. Coupled with a fake history, propaganda, and manipulation sociological conditions and you got a whole lot of fascist and immoral sociopaths and psychopaths. Don’t believe it? Go read the comments section on Jpost/ynet/haaretz on articles pertaining to the Norway attacks. They mostly say the same thing: “They got what they deserved”

          These are the people with the most (im)moral army on the planet dedicated to de(of)fense, protectors against terrorism (resistance, freedom fighters from the oppressed). Oh and they have nukes which they aren’t afraid to use out of this paranoia either (see 1973)

        • eee says:

          No, the law of the land has no biblical basis whatsoever. Where did you come up with that? Israeli law is based on British common law except for real estate issues which are also influenced by Ottoman law. You are creating a straw-man to argue against.

        • Dan Crowther says:

          No biblical basis? Then WHAT THE F ARE A BUNCH OF EUROPEANS DOING IN THE MIDDLE EAST?

          Im starting to think you dont read and comprehend english so well, my first post was in reaction to james who said, these people are crazy – they themselves declared a state for themselves and tossed alot of people out etc – what kind of country could be so blind to their own past?

          To that I said ( in a roundabout way) that a country comprised of people who think they are owed something based on a book written eons ago is the kind of country that james seemed dumbfounded by….. to which you (eee) said something totally ridiculous about “manifest destiny” and the law of the land…..as if “the law of the land” regarding the creation of Israel and Zionism itself had no biblical basis…So, according to eee the Jews from ANYWHERE on the planet can immigrate to Israel because of “british common law” it has nothing to do with the nonsense in the bible about “the chosen people” etc etc…..eee, you my friend definitely took the short bus to school…….

        • dimadok says:

          Jews can come to Israel basing on the same definition as were the infamous Nuremberg laws-shall I remind you the ones?
          link to en.wikipedia.org
          Now has any other country postulates itself as the safe heaven for the Jews?

        • Fredblogs says:

          Actually, a majority of Israel’s Jews (over 70%) were born in Israel. Only about 21% are from Europe.

          As for what Jews whose recent ancestors spent time in Europe (as opposed to their more distant ancestors who genetics, archaeology, and history prove were from the Middle East) are doing in Israel: Their recent ancestors emigrated there to join the Jews who had been there since the fall of the previous Israel. Which incidentally is known from history, not just the Bible.

          By what right do they have a country there? Right of conquest, right of the say so of the previous government (see Mandate for Palestine(the region, not the non-existent country)), recognized by the U.N. and most other nations on Earth. IOW, the usual way countries get established.

          Delete the bible from the picture and Israel still has at least as much right to exist as Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc., etc., etc.

          eee was (I suspect) winding you up. Since he was answering the question of why Jews can move to Israel now that it exists. The answer of course being “because the current government lets them”.

          As for what right the Israelis have to the West Bank, the Palestinians are not party to the Geneva Conventions. As such the rules that exist in the absence of the Geneva Conventions are at play in the West Bank. The pre-GC rules are that you can keep whatever you can hold. Which seems fair to me, since if the Palestinians had ever one the war, they would have taken all the land belonging to Israel. It takes a special kind of chutzpah to try to steal someone else’s land in a war of extermination, then when you lose to complain that they took your land instead.

          If the Palestinians don’t like the old rule of “keep what you take”, they can become de facto parties to the Geneva Conventions by obeying them. Primarily, end the attacks against civilian targets, fight in uniform, don’t mix military targets in among your civilians, and let the Red Cross see Gilad Shalit.

        • Hostage says:

          No, the law of the land has no biblical basis whatsoever.

          Funny I was just reading Female ‘Get’ Refuser Jailed -Jerusalem Rabbinical Court jails a woman, 59, who has refused to divorce her husband since 1996. link to israelnationalnews.com

          What is the deal with the whole kashrut certificate scam, or those Haredim legally barricading the roads passing through their neighborhoods for Shabbos, & etc.?

        • eee says:

          Dan,

          Exactly, you got it right. Jews from anywhere can immigrate to Israel because of an Israeli law. It has nothing to do with the bible. The same law also allows non-Jews related to Jews to immigrate. That you try to link this law to some nonsense in the bible is your problem. You just do not understand the simple concept that each sovereign country has the right to set its own immigration laws and the Jewish state naturally would facilitate Jewish immigration to it.

          As for being owed anything by anybody, Israelis do not spend years in the IDF and risk their lives for their country because they think they are “owed”. They do it because they know there are people in the world like you who would separate them from their land.

        • annie says:

          Jews can come to Israel basing on the same definition as were the infamous Nuremberg laws-shall I remind you the ones

          okkkkkayyyy

        • annie says:

          spent time in Europe

          you mean a couple centuries? generation upon generations worth? that kind of ‘spent time’?

        • Duscany says:

          If Israel wants to call itself “the Jewish state” it has the right to do so. Where Israel offends ordinary common sense, though, is when it calls itself “the Jewish Democratic state,” as if it is possible to be a state where one tribe has over-whelming legal, social and economic advantages and call itself a democracy too.

        • James says:

          fredblogs “Actually, a majority of Israel’s Jews (over 70%) were born in Israel. Only about 21% are from Europe.”

          i am sure that number is going up very fast too with those extreme right – orthodox jews having so many babies – 10 or more kids per family generally… they are giving any liberal-type jew in israel a real head-ache thinking of how the political landscape is changing so rapidly in a direction that frightens many of the diaspora outside israel as well…

          quote “Delete the bible from the picture and Israel still has…” do they still have all the nutbar right wing funny mental christians wanting to be drawn up into heaven? it would be a real blessing if these folks woke up to reality, but i doubt it is going to happen any time soon, even if the zionists were a lot more forthright in their long standing designs…

          the rest of your commentary is loaded with holes that are too bothersome to address point by point…

        • American says:

          “If the Palestinians don’t like the old rule of “keep what you take”

          I gotta say Fred , down South we have a name for that attitude…we call them ‘jumped up white trash’…..usually applied to dirty, low class, shifty little runts bragging about how tough they are and distrubing the peace by showing their asses till some good ole boy trying to mind his own business in peace and quiet gets tired of their mouthy replusiveness and puts them in the hospital.

        • Shingo says:

          Where Israel offends ordinary common sense, though, is when it calls itself “the Jewish Democratic state..

          No, where Israel offends ordinary common sense si that it demands to be recognized as a Jewish state by the Palestinians, when no other state has ever recgonized it as such.

        • Shingo says:

          Actually, a majority of Israel’s Jews (over 70%) were born in Israel. Only about 21% are from Europe.

          ..as opposed to their more distant ancestors who genetics, archaeology, and history prove were from the Middle East)

          The ME also includes Turkey, which is the origin of the Kazarz, not necessarily Palestine.

            Which incidentally is known from history, not just the Bible.

          Israel of 1948 has nothing to do any extinct civilization.

           

           Mandate for Palestine(the region, not the non-existent country)), recognized by the U.N. and most other nations on Earth. IOW, the usual way countries get established.

          The Israel recognized by the UN and tre other states does not include East Jerusalem, the West Bank, the Golan or Gaza.

          In fact, the only recognized capital is Tel Aviv.

           As for what right the Israelis have to the West Bank, the Palestinians are not party to the Geneva Conventions.

          Yes they are and what’s more, Israel is, which is why Theodore Meringue warned that building settlements in the OT was a violation of the GC.

          The pre-GC rules are that you can keep whatever you can hold.

          The GC were created before Israel, so there was no pre  GC.

          And the GC’s were 23 years old by the time Israel conquered the OT.

           It takes a special kind of chutzpah to try to steal someone else’s land in a war of extermination, then when you lose to complain that they took your land instead.

          The only stealing done was by Israel.

           Primarily, end the attacks against civilian targets

          Why, when Israel won’t?

          fight in uniform

          They do, as confirmed by the IDF.

          don’t mix military targets in among your civilians

          Shin Bet appealed a Supreme Court ban on the use of human shields.

          and let the Red Cross see Gilad Shalit.

          Right after you let them see the 2 brothers Israel kidnapped from Gaza the day before Shalit was captured .

        • Shingo says:

          i am sure that number is going up very fast too with those extreme right – orthodox jews having so many babies – 10 or more kids per family generally…

          Just imagine the headaches that will create in terms of welfare, with all those people refusing to work?

          I read somewhere that given current trends, this will lead to 1 tax payer for every 4 Israelis living on welfare.

          Talk about being unsustainable!

        • Mooser says:

          “Or you can attempt to use violence.”

          Against people like you who are too frightened to even use your name? That would hardly be fair, would it?

        • talknic says:

          eee

          “because of an Israeli law”

          Indeed. Within the extent of Israel’s Internationally recognized sovereign extent. Outside of Israel’s legitimate sovereign extent, it has no legal bearing.

          Palestinians spend years resisting and risking their lives for their country because they know they are rightfully “owed” according to the law. They do it because they know there are people in the world, like you, who have been separating them from their land for 63 years.

        • Hostage says:

          Fredblogs you are merely regurgitating propaganda talking points verbatim that have already been debunked here dozens of times before. The indigenous Arab Jews of Palestine did not view the newly arrived socialist Zionists as either co-nationalists or co-religionists. In many cases the Zionists forcibly evicted them from properties they purchased and considered them assimilated to their Arab brethren. See the extract from Jews of Many Lands at the link above and Arthur Ruppin, The Picture in 1907

          By what right do they have a country there? Right of conquest, right of the say so of the previous government (see Mandate for Palestine(the region, not the non-existent country)), recognized by the U.N.

          *The right of conquest had passed out of international law by the time article 2(4) and 2(6) of the UN Charter were adopted. link to yale.edu
          *The San Remo conference and the League of Nations both made Great Britain responsible for interpreting and implementing its own Balfour Declaration. It only recognized a qualified right of Jewish immigration and settlement under “suitable conditions”. The Supreme Court of Palestine ruled that the mandate itself was not self-executing and that it was only legally enforceable insofar as it was incorporated in municipal enabling legislation. The 1939 White Paper and the 1940 Land Transfer Ordinance established the maximum legal bounds of Jewish settlement and partitioned the country in a way that the Jewish Agency simply refused to accept. The Anglo-American Committee noted that Jews were denied opportunity of settlement in nine-tenths of Eretz Israel. It rejected the proposition that a Jewish State should be established in Palestine. In 1948, Great Britain and the rest of the UN Security Council refused to implement any UN plan of partition by force because it was not accepted by the majority of the Palestinian people. So, no. The previous government did not recognize a Jewish right to have a country there.

          As for what right the Israelis have to the West Bank, the Palestinians are not party to the Geneva Conventions. As such the rules that exist in the absence of the Geneva Conventions are at play in the West Bank.

          The Geneva Conventions are simply a reflection of customary international law and both Jordan and Palestine are signatories. In 2004 the ICJ rejected your nonsensical argument and noted that the government of Switzerland considered Palestine’s agreement to be bound by the terms of the Fourth Geneva Convention to be a valid international undertaking. In 2005 the International Committee of the Red Cross admitted both Israel and Palestine as full members – a status open only to states.

          FYI, Serbia tried to use the same “not a state” argument to justify its deportations and displacement of the population of Croatia. In “The Prosecutor v. Slobodan Milosevic – Case No. IT-02-54-T (Rule 98 bis test – Deportation, forcible transfer and cross border transfer – Definition of a State)”, the Amici Curiae motion argued that all “grave breaches” counts in the Croatia Indictment before January 15, 1992, had to be dismissed because the Prosecution failed to establish that Croatia was a state before that time, making the conflict one of a non-international nature. So, there was a genuine disagreement regarding the existence of statehood that could have effected the result of the case under governing law. “The Trial Chamber noted that the best known definition of a state is provided by the Montevideo Convention, Art.1 which reads: “The State as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with other States.” The most decisive of these is the last. Based upon negotiations and relations with other international actors, the Trial Chamber concluded there was sufficient evidence that Croatia was a state. Unlike Croatia, Palestine has been formally recognized as a state by many, if not most, of the high contracting parties to the Montevideo and Geneva Conventions. Neither convention contains a compromissory clause that would permit third party belligerents to challenge determinations of statehood or the applicability of the conventions during an armed conflict.

          If the Palestinians don’t like the old rule of “keep what you take”, they can become de facto parties to the Geneva Conventions by obeying them. Primarily, end the attacks against civilian targets, fight in uniform, don’t mix military targets in among your civilians, and let the Red Cross see Gilad Shalit.

          The Reconvened Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions have declared that Israel’s settlements in the occupied territory are illegal. Israel launched a preemptive attack on a graduation ceremony for the uniformed police in Gaza and claimed they were combatants, but Israel doesn’t treat uniformed police or militias as POWs. When did the ICRC ever visit the prisoners in Facility 1391?

          The Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics says that there are over 7,000 prisoners in Israeli jails. That practice violates the non-deportation provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 1949. The Oslo Agreements only granted Israel criminal jurisdiction “in accordance with international law”. But Israel has formally refused to comply with the provisions of international law. The Israeli High Court of Justice (HCJ) recently rejected a petition to order the State to refrain from holding Palestinian prisoners and detainees in facilities located in Israeli territory within the Green Line. The HCJ held that since national legislation overrides the provisions of international conventions to which Israel is party, including conventions that reflect customary international law, the petition should be rejected. But the Palestinians only agreed that Israeli legislation would not derogate from international law in cases involving Israel’s legislation over Israelis citizens in personam. The notion that national legislation can be employed to sanction breaches of international humanitarian law or war crimes is part of the judge-made fundamental body of law that the Courts have incorporated into Israel’s unwritten constitution.

        • Fredblogs says:

          @annie re: spent time in Europe. Correct. Since the people here are describing Israeli born Jews of European ancestry as being “from Europe”, I decided to be more accurate than to say “came from Europe” or “whose ancestors came from Europe”, since it is also true that they ancestors came from Israel, just earlier ancestors. It’s a Europe sandwich on Israel bread. The Israelis (70%) were born in Israel, their recent ancestors were born in Europe, their ancient ancestors were born in Israel.

          What is fun about it is that the Jews have both the oldest surviving claim and the newest claim to Israel. The only way you can say the Palestinians have a better claim is to arbitrarily designate a particular time and say “if your ancestors have been gone more than X years, you lose your claim”. If you just say “Palestinians who never lived in Israel have an older claim because their ancestors lived in that location before it became Israel”, then you lose the battle of the claims because the Israelis have a still older claim. If you say, “the Jews’ ancient claim is no good because their ancestors left” then the Palestinians claim for any of them less than 63 years old is no good because their ancestors left.

          Of course, if you pick a time after which claims expire, then all the Jews have to do to be legit under your supposed standards is keep the Palestinians out for X number of years.

        • Shingo says:

          The only way you can say the Palestinians have a better claim is to arbitrarily designate a particular time and say “if your ancestors have been gone more than X years, you lose your claim”.

          There is no legal or recognized basis for “claim” of teritory.

          If you just say “Palestinians who never lived in Israel have an older claim because their ancestors lived in that location before it became Israel”, then you lose the battle of the claims because the Israelis have a still older claim.

          False. The 2 cases are completely different. The Palestinian refugees have a claim in the grounds that they were ethnicalyl cleansed. The progeny of those refugees, have a claim based on property rights to land they would have inherited.

          Your Jewish land claim is based on fiction from the Bible.

        • Hostage says:

          That you try to link this law to some nonsense in the bible is your problem.

          On the day he introduced the Law of Return and the Nationality Laws, during the 160th Sitting of the First Knesset, David Ben Gurion quoted the Jewish historian Josephus and also said: “These two laws determine the special character and destiny of Israel as bearer of the vision of the redemption of the Jewish Nation. . . . On 14 May 1948 the Jewish State was established not as something completely new but as the restoration of our ancient glory, 1813 years after our independence had been destroyed, supposedly forever, at the time of Bar Kochba and Rabbi Akiva. . . . Neither can the revival of the Jewish State be understood without knowing the history of the Jewish people during the period of the First and Second Temples, the history of Jewish prophecy, spirit and vision, the history of the Jewish diaspora and the concept of messianism, and its various manifestations, the incessant attempts of the wandering nation throughout the generations to return to its land and the history of the eternal culture which was forged in this land and its influence on the Jews and the rest of the world.” The motives for unconditional immigration to Israel that he cited were “yearning for redemption, ancient memories, religious sentiments and love of the homeland”. He said “The Law of Return is one of the State of Israel’s Basic Laws. It encompasses one of the central missions of our country, the in-gathering of the exiles.” See Lorch, Netanel (ed), Major Knesset Debates, 1948-1981, Volume 2, JCPA/University Press of America, 1993, pp 611 – 613.

          So, the authors of the Law invoked the First and Second Temples, the prophets, messianism, redemption, The Antiquities of The Jews by Josephus (aka the Bible), and the in-gathering of purported exiles. Any time you need help with your legislative history, just ask.

        • Hostage says:

          What is fun about it is that the Jews have both the oldest surviving claim and the newest claim to Israel.

          Fredblogs your fellow hasbarats spout-off all the time about DNA studies, but downplay the fact that they prove the Palestinians were always living in the land and just acquired new accretions of religion and language.

          The majority of biblical scholars and archaeologists have rejected the historical accuracy of the scriptures for years and even decades. Israel Finkelstein, chairman of the Archaeology Department at Tel Aviv University, with archaeology historian Neil Asher Silberman published a book called “The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Text”. It claimed the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the twelve tribes of Israel. It said the united kingdom of David and Solomon, described in the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small mountain tribe led by chieftains. So, the superiority of your more ancient claims are extremely doubtful. See for example link to salon.com and Israel Jacob Yuval, “The Myth of the Jewish Exile from the Land of Israel: A Demonstration of Irenic Scholarship”, Common Knowledge – Volume 12, Issue 1, Winter 2006, pp. 16-33 link to muse.jhu.edu

        • annie says:

          thanks hostage, salon’s King David was a nebbish is ….well, i liked the title! what a kick in the balls.

        • Hostage says:

          I find it odd when Jews try to assert a more ancient claim to the land, when in fact, the Jewish holy books claim that during the Exodus: “God led them not through the way of the land of the Philistines”; that the cities of the Philistines were Gaza, Ashdod, Ashkelon, Ekron, and Gath; that God viewed the Israelites as no different than the Cushites, and that God brought Israel up from Egypt in the same way that he brought the Philistines from Caphtor and the Arameans from Kir.

        • thetumta says:

          “you can keep whatever you can hold”. You will, of course maintain this position come what may?
          Hej!

        • MHughes976 says:

          And Genesis 20 and 21 show the Palestinians already there when Abraham, let alone Moses, arrived. They treat Abraham well and he treats them rather badly, promising on behalf of his descendants better things in future.

  2. Chu says:

    The sham solidarity of Israel’s Zionist left
    The Electronic Intifada

    (for witty and his posse)

    • Shmuel says:

      Thanks, Chu. A really excellent article.

      • Chu says:

        He makes a clear case, Shmuel. While the left attempts to help, some are not the real partners for solidarity, nor will they ever be. Great article…

        • Shmuel says:

          I especially liked this bit: When persons in a position of privilege formulate and design a solution and impose it on a colonized and occupied people as the only viable solution and the “sole remaining constructive step,” as the 15 July call to action put it, this is not solidarity but rather another form of occupation.

          BTW, the author is a woman: Budour Youssef Hassan, originally from Nazareth, is a Palestinian socialist activist and third-year law student at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Follow her on Twitter: twitter.com/Budouroddick.

  3. Shmuel says:

    And they then could forget about the refugee issue and Jerusalem.

    And just as the Israelis were about to make significant concessions on those very issues :-P

    • iamuglow says:

      haha.

      Annexing East Jerusalem, the settlements, denouncing the rights of any refugees…we weren’t serious about any of that!

  4. If the Oslo Accords are renounced, then Israel becomes an unequivocal occupier of the land, responsible for social welfare, policing, everything politic.

    There was also a report today by Ethan Bronner, describing the PA’s budgetary difficulties.

    Those may be permanent, compelling them to give up on Oslo, and anything like it.

    Did you actually watch the video Phil? I didn’t Mr Mansour “break up” as Noam Sheizaf reported.

    The UNRWA representative that preceeded him, described an element of the predicament as the failure of Hamas and Fatah to proceed on unification (a critical problem to my mind).

    It makes the stand of supporting Palestinian independence, much much more of a gamble. I’m still for the resolution, as I hope that it would precipitate getting to “how to”.

    Most on the far left and left/right and Palestinian right don’t want Palestine and Israel to get to “how to”. Certainly most on the Israeli right also don’t.

    • Charon says:

      If the Oslo Accords are renounced, Jordan’s peace treaty with Israel becomes partially violated and the nations who recognized Israel after the Madrid Conference might pull their recognition among others.

      It would be unwise to renounce them even if they currently mean very little. Israel supporters could make the excuse that the Palestinians violated them while Palestinian supporters would have a far better argument that Israel never took them seriously (Bibi himself admitting to ‘stopping’ them). It would make the US look dumb for wasting time and money playing a mediator with the same broken strategy (which is obvious to anybody with a brain anyways).

      I’d have to go back and read all the little agreements and sub-agreements between the USA and Israel, but there might even be some sort of a technicality that could hurt Israel from renouncing the Accords.

      The neocons in Congress would do everything to protect Israel of course, but they are also on the same losing side.

      Do you think the Palestinians are going to just let Israeli police and military waltz into their villages again? Sure their resistance would be futile given the power of Israeli military, but internationally that wouldn’t look very good for the Zionist regime. Especially if statehood somehow makes itself out of the UN (even if it is ‘symbolic’)

    • Chaos4700 says:

      DUMB. ASS. Israel has always been an unequivocal occupier and Israel has always had an obligation to the Palestinians under the Fourth Geneva Convention.

      Get your thick skull out of the 19th century, Witty. Colonialism is failing and your “precious jewel” is going to die with it, as disgraced international war criminals on the same order as the Nazis, the Sudanese government and Rwanda.

  5. Charon says:

    Israel uses over 80% of the water supplied from the aquifers in the West Bank and Gaza. That’s Palestinian water. They can’t cut it off. Palestine could threaten to cut it off from Israel and the settlers. They can get food and fuel elsewhere. Hypocritical occupying sociopathic Israel.

    The Oslo Accords have been dead for over a decade. Bibi himself admit he stopped it. Abbas already eluded to disbanding the PA.

    Israel has no intention of letting the Palestinians have a state of their own. They never did. All this talk of negotiating and sacrifices. It is Israel who has to make sacrifices. They want to keep territory that they occupied and deliberately settled to prevent this very thing from happening.

  6. NickJOCW says:

    We are swept up in a process which has, alas, no longer any peaceful resolution. The isolation and desperation of the Zionist/Settler movement is increasingly disturbing because of the martyrdom many will be prepared to seek to sustain mythopeic convictions that have no meaningful relevance in the 21st Century. We can only shade our eyes in human despair as they sink beneath the quicksand of their misguided beliefs.

  7. Les says:

    Kedar fits the definition of “white minded.”

  8. Fredblogs says:

    If Israel occupies the land, they have an obligation to make sure the civilians don’t starve, etc.

    If Israel pulls out and leaves the W.B. to its own devices, they would have no such obligation. The Palestinians would have to fend for themselves.

    • Chaos4700 says:

      Is that a promise to eradicate the settlements, stop stealing water from West Bank Acquifers and to remove that apartheid wall that was built?

    • Woody Tanaka says:

      If Israel pulls out (i.e., goes back to the Zionist Entity (the 1967 lines)) then the Palestinians would happy to fend for themselves. If the Jews controlled importation and exportation to the West Bank section of Palestine, then they’d still be an occupying power.

    • American says:

      “If Israel pulls out and leaves the W.B. to its own devices, they would have no such obligation. The Palestinians would have to fend for themselves”

      I don’t think that would be a problem for Palestine.
      The problem would be Israel’s.
      No more stolen water from the West Bank, no more stolen land and resources. No more Israel stealing Palestine tax revenues. No more occupied farming land for Israeli settlers.
      There are oceans of money in the ME, Palestine would get all the start up help it needs.
      Evidently you have never studied the history of the region before Israel existed —Palestine bloomed and was quite a center of commerce for produce long before the Israel existed and the Israelis destroyed it, it would again.
      And once I/P no longer existed maybe the US would decide it didn’t have to give Israel so much money and military aid and Israel would have to fend for itself.

      link to haaretz.com
      Published 01:46 28.07.11
      Latest update 01:46 28.07.11
      U.S. report recommends ending loan guarantees to Israel at end of 2011

    • Koshiro says:

      If Israel occupies the land, they have an obligation to make sure the civilians don’t starve, etc.

      Since Israel does not, in fact, meet this obligation right now, but instead lets the US and Europe foot the bill, nothing would change for the worse. And as others have pointed out, a lot of things would change for the better.

  9. Fredblogs says:

    Oh, and let’s be honest. They can forget about the refugee issue right now. Jerusalem They may have a 1% chance of getting an Israeli government that would give them the Palestinian neighborhoods of East Jerusalem, but no way could they get any deal that would give them authority to stop Israelis from going to the Western Wall.

    • Chaos4700 says:

      Oh my gosh, yeah, it would be terrible for Israelis to have to experience exactly the same inconvenience that you all inflict on Muslims by restricting how many can go to the Dome of the Rock. ESPECIALLY on religious holidays.

      It must be nice, to know that you fly out from your American suburb right now, today, and be standing next to a religious site in easily under a 48 hour period, that a Muslim man just down a kilometer or two away has to spend MONTHS making arrangements for and could as likely as not be turned away anyway at any of the checkpoints he needs to cross to get there.

      It must be nice to be white and Jewish, right?

      • Fredblogs says:

        re: the Temple Mount:

        The Israelis already experienced far more inconvenience than the Muslims experience. The Israelis may restrict numbers to prevent huge mobs and potential large riots, but the Arabs didn’t allow any Israelis to visit the Western Wall from 1948 to 1967. That’s why the Israelis will never give the Palestinians that authority. Experience.

        As for getting turned away at checkpoints, that is the result of Palestinian terrorist groups refusing to distinguish themselves from Palestinian civilians. When the Palestinians stop sending terrorists dressed as civilians to attack Israelis, then you will have a non-laughable complaint when Israelis preventing civilians from visiting the Dome of the Rock.

        “It must be nice to be white and Jewish, right?” Who said I was white? Then again, who said I wasn’t? Interesting, I’m not sure if a single post I’ve put up here would preclude my being any particular race.

        • Shingo says:

          The Israelis already experienced far more inconvenience than the Muslims experience.

          Really? So more than 750,000 Israelis were driven from their homes and their homes, villages and town destroyed?

          When the Palestinians stop sending terrorists dressed as civilians to attack Israelis, then you will have a non-laughable complaint when Israelis preventing civilians from visiting the Dome of the Rock.

          BS. They stopped doing it 4 years ago and nothign has changed.

        • thetumta says:

          Fred is “Witty”, no doubt?

    • Woody Tanaka says:

      “but no way could they get any deal that would give them authority to stop Israelis from going to the Western Wall.”

      Who says they want to stop them? If anything, I’m sure they’re concerned about psychopath religious Jews from doing a Taliban-job and desecrate Al-Haram ash-Sharif to build a temple.

      • dimadok says:

        link to sixdaywar.org
        Religious Restrictions and Denial of Access to Holy Sites
        J Street Condemns PA Official’s Denial of Jewish Connection to Western Wall
        jstreet.org/blog/j-street-condemns-pa-officials-denial-of-jewish-connection-to-western-wall/

        Who is going to prevent that from recurring?

        • Chaos4700 says:

          Do you mean to say that Jordan blocked passage from established insurgents who had, by that time, ethnically cleansed HUNDREDS of Palestinian villages? And meanwhile Jews from anywhere else in the world than the newly formed state that had — and continues to — blow up mosques and churches, any Jew from the US or Europe, they could still visit the Western Wall?

          Is that what you mean?

        • dimadok says:

          Have you read the link? How you will explain blown synagogues ?

        • Shingo says:

          Religious Restrictions and Denial of Access to Holy Sites

          Israel and Jordan were at war. Are Hamas memebers permitted to visit Jerusalem?

          BTW. Jews were allowed to visit the holy sites, just not Israelis.

          One and I loves this passage:

          While Great Britain and Pakistan were the only countries that recognized Jordan’s annexation – all other nations, including the Arab states, rejected it

          Whereas, no one at all recognizes Israel’s annexation.

          Too funny dimadok.

        • Hostage says:

          Have you read the link? How you will explain blown synagogues ?

          According to Rephael Kitron, “Eretz Yisrael Hanisteret: Sippuram Shel Ha’slikim Ve’toldotehem” (“The Hidden Land of Israel: The Story and History of the Secret Weapons Caches” ); Pathe News; Haaretz, & many personal accounts the Jewish underground used synagogues to store weapons and explosives and as terror recruiting and training centers.

          link to haaretz.com
          link to youtube.com

          Yehuda Lapidot wrote “I was determined to make a supreme effort to overcome this impediment and practiced for hours on one of only two Brens in Jerusalem. I was often reduced to despair, but finally my persistence paid off. I immediately began organizing the courses, firstly for commanders and then for the rank-and-file. We tried holding the training sessions in our meeting rooms, but when they proved too small, I gave the boys the task of finding a better place. One of them came up with the idea of using the synagogue in the Bukharin quarter, which was empty from the end of morning prayers till the afternoon service. We obtained the keys, brought in the weapons and held a series of training sessions from eight in the morning to three in the afternoon. Throughout the sessions we left guards outside the synagogue to warn us of approaching danger.

          link to daat.ac.il

        • talknic says:

          dimadok

          Interesting how Australia and the US and the UK banned entry of, interred or deported foreigners from enemy nations during ww1, wwII, the Korean War, the Vietnamese War etc etc etc. Israel does it today. To the Palestinians. Whenever Israel has a celebration or religious holiday.

          BTW it was by Israeli military order, instituted in 1948, that Israeli citizens and residents are forbidden entry into the territory of an hostile entity.

          I believe the site was also closed to everyone during the restoration work under Jordan’s temporary trusteeship.

        • Hostage says:

          While Great Britain and Pakistan were the only countries that recognized Jordan’s annexation – all other nations, including the Arab states, rejected it

          Here we go again. You are repeating an old hasbara talking point that was completely false when it was first uttered.

          *The State Department Digest of International Law devoted an entire chapter to “Territory and Sovereignty of States”. In § 8 “Annexation” there is a discussion about the acquisition of the West Bank by Jordan on the basis of the four resolutions of the Second Palestinian Arab Conference (aka the Jericho Congress) held on December 1, 1948. See pages 1163-1168. It also describes US recognition of the union as an expression of the sovereign will of the two peoples. Secretary of State Acheson stated at his April 26, 1950 press conference that “The elections which were held on the 11th were on the basis of the incorporation of Arab Palestine into the Hashemite Kingdom. Those elections have taken place and this action of the parliament will be to ratify that decision. Now, our American attitude is that we have no objection whatever to the union of peoples mutually desirous of this new relationship.” See page 1167 of Marjorie M. Whiteman (editor), Digest of International Law, vol. 2 (Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1963)

          *Jordan called attention to the fact that after the unification of the West Bank within Jordan’s territory, Jordan concluded a considerable number of bilateral and multilateral treaties with other states (including the members of the Arab League). The application of those treaties extended to the entirety of Jordan including all of the West Bank: none of the other parties to those treaties made any reservation to the effect that their applicability to the West Bank was excluded. See Written Statement of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan to the Internartional Court of Justice, para 2.21 pages 18-19 link to icj-cij.org

          * § 204, Reporters Note 2, The Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States says that “Recogni­tion of a state has been effected by express official declaration, by the conclusion of a bilateral agreement with the state, by the presentation of credentials by a United States representative to the authorities of the new state, and by receiving the credentials of a diplomatic represen­tative of that state.”

          *Department of State bulletin, Volume: volume 20, 1949 noted de jure recognition of the government of Jordan; that a U.S. legation to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan was established in Amman; and that Dr Yussef Baikal had presented credentials as “(Jordan) Minister” to the United States.

          *The Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS) series presents the official documentary historical record of major U.S. foreign policy decisions and significant diplomatic activity. It contains a Memorandum of Conversation, between Mr. Stuart W. Rockwell of the Office of African and Near Eastern Affairs and Mr. Abdel Monem Rifai, Counselor, Jordan Legation in Washington, June 5, 1950 which documents the US recognition of the union between Arab Palestine and Transjordan. See Foreign relations of the United States, 1950. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, Volume V (1950), Page 921 link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

          *The US signed several treaties with Jordan: a Technical Cooperation Agreement with Jordan that entered into force February 27, 1951 (Volume 4206 of Department of State publication Volume 2233 of Treaties, a Guaranty of Private Investments Agreement effected by an exchange of notes, signed at Amman July 10 and September 24, 1956, Volume 3663 of Treaties, and an Economic Assistance Agreement including an exchange of notes signed at Amman June 29, 1957, Volume 3869 of Treaties of the United States. None of the treaties contained any reservations regarding the West Bank.

          *Thomas Kuttner notes that de facto recognition was granted to the Jordanian regime, most clearly evidenced by the maintaining of consulates in East Jerusalem by several countries, including the United States. See Israel and the West Bank, By Thomas S. Kuttner, Israel Yearbook on Human Rights 1977, Volume 7; Volume 1977, edited by Yoram Dinstein, Kluwer Law International, 1989, ISBN 0-7923-0357-1, page 166

          *Joseph Weiler said that other states had engaged in activities, statements, and resolutions that would be inconsistent with non-recognition. See Israel and the creation of a Palestinian state: a European perspective, By Joseph Weiler, Croom Helm, Ltd. 1985, ISBN 0-7099-3605-2, page 48, footnote 14

          *Joseph Massad said that the members of the Arab League granted de facto recognition and that the United States had formally recognized the annexation, except for Jerusalem. See Joseph A. Massad, Colonial Effects: The Making of National Identity in Jordan (New York: Columbia University Press, 2001), ISBN 0-231-12323-X, page 229

          *The Security Council adopted Resolution 228 (1966) in which the Council observed that, “the grave Israeli Military action which took place in the southern Hebron area [of the West Bank] on 13 November 1966… constituted a large scale and carefully planned military action ”on the territory of Jordan” by the armed forces of Israel” See “Written Statement of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan” submitted to the Internartional Court of Justice, para 2.21, page 19 of 229 link to icj-cij.org

          *In a letter to David Ben-Gurion published by Reuters on 9 January 1968, French President De Gaulle explained that he was convinced that Israel had ignored his warnings and overstepped the bounds of moderation by taking possession of Jerusalem, and so much Jordanian, Egyptian, and Syrian territory by force of arms. See Text of de Gaulle’s Answer to Letter From Ben-Gurion at Select.nytimes.com link to select.nytimes.com

          *During the 5th Emergency Session of the General Assembly the representative of the Soviet Union, Mr. Kosygin, repeatedly asserted that the West Bank was Jordanian territory. See A/PV.1526 of 19 June 1967. link to unispal.un.org

          *On June 9, 1967 Foreign Minister Eban assured US Ambassador Goldberg that Israel was not seeking territorial aggrandizement and had no “colonial” aspirations. See Foreign Relations of the United States Volume XIX, Arab-Israeli Crisis and War, 1967, page 386, Document number 227 Secretary Rusk stressed to the Government of Israel that no settlement with Jordan would be accepted by the world community unless it preserved Jordan’s special position in the Old City of Jerusalem. The US also assumed Jordan would receive the bulk of the West Bank as that was regarded as Jordanian territory. See Foreign Relations of the United States Volume XIX, Arab-Israeli Crisis and War, 1967, page 765-766, Document 411

          *A cable dated April 8, 1968 from Johnson administration Secretary of State, Dean Rusk was published in 2000 by the GPO as part of the US State Department FRUS series, Volume XX, Arab-Israeli Dispute, 1967–68. It said that the US Government had explained its views to the Government of Israel (GOI) that “the transfer of civilians to occupied areas, whether or not in settlements which are under military control, is contrary to Article 49 of the Geneva Convention”. The cable mentions resolution 242 in Rusk’s concluding remarks: “Finally, you should emphasize that no matter what rationale or explanation is put forward by the GOI, the establishment of civilian settlements in the occupied areas creates the strong appearance that Israel, contrary to the principle set forth in the UNSC Resolution and to US policy expressed in the President’s speech of June 19, does not intend to reach a settlement involving withdrawal from those areas.”
          link to history.state.gov

          There were never any UN resolutions which referred to Jordan as an occupying power in the West Bank, but there have been dozens which explain that Israel is an occupying power in the Arab territories captured in 1967.

      • Mooser says:

        “It must be nice to be white and Jewish, right?”

        Are you kidding? Listen, pal, nobody knows the trouble I’ve seen; I’ve got a right to sing the blues!

  10. Shingo says:

    The people making these threats are the same people who claimed that the Arabs attacked Israel after it declared independence.

    Are they for real?

  11. American says:

    “No food, no water”… no anything.

    Think about what kind of people would do that.
    Think about how America would undoubtedly allow it.
    Just for Palestine people ‘legally and non violently’ trying to establish their own statehood, keep their land and get out from under 60 years of assaults and occupation.

    Usually I use words like sick or deranged to describe this kind of zionist mentality…but they are too mild.

    • Shingo says:

      Usually I use words like sick or deranged to describe this kind of zionist mentality…but they are too mild.

      And these are the same people who insist that the only explanation for the Palestinian anger and animosity is anti Semitism.

  12. Mooser says:

    “And these are the same people….”

    We have no idea who any of these people are, except Witty (Phil can vouch for his existence)
    I wouldn’t take a single one of their flatulent statements seriously. If they’re not even willing to give their own name, they are not even worthy of contempt. They are obvioulsy ashamed of themselves. If they won’t stand on their identity, they won’t stand on their stolen land, either.
    Frankly, I think it’s much more likely that our trolls are anti-Zionists familiar with hasbara acting as rhetorical pin-boys (they set ‘em up, you guys knock ‘em down.)
    Maybe I’m wrong, and I will have to abandon my last vestiges of ethnic chauvinism; the belief that Jews are at least smart enough to know when to keep their mouths shut. Oh well, consequences of in-breeding, I guess.

  13. American says:

    ” I think it’s much more likely that our trolls are anti-Zionists familiar with hasbara acting as rhetorical pin-boys (they set ‘em up, you guys knock ”

    I seen some commenters on the net that I have suspected of that…some whose rhetoric is so over the top they could be agitators for Stormfront or the Klan, pretending to be Jews writing trash about Arabs and pretending to be Arabs writing trash about Jews to stir things up.
    But the people I was referring to aren’t the net trolls, they are the ones in the Israeli government and the zio camp in the US who would have no moral problem at all with starving people out.

    • thetumta says:

      “Stormfront or the Klan”? What leads you to believe that those 5 guys in the woods in Oregon have a web connection? All the Klansman I grew up with in the 50′s have moved on and overcome their upbringing. Their birth place not being something they were not responsible for. Their not the problem. An irrelevant myth.

  14. NickJOCW says:

    What these exchanges cannot conceal is the increasing isolation of Israel’s leadership. It is one of the unfortunate by-products of modern democracy that rather than resulting in the pursuit of the wishes of the majority, it over adapts to accommodate extremists. Israel has always been particularly riven by internal dissension; a distinguished Jewish publisher once suggested to me, lightly of course, that Israel was the only place anti-Semitism would pass unnoticed since the Jews were rife with it, one group to another. The simple truth is, Zionism has reached its sell by date and is no longer fit for consumption. This is an irreversible state.